The new patch has made a bad game even worse
- Thread starter kamex
- Start date
Wow, I never knew I'd kicked such a hornets nest! The OP poster is back!
For fun mainly, although I like a challenge. The problems come when 'balanced' mode, is too easy, and then 'hard' mode is just silly - the AIs aren't smarter at all, just get game breaking economic bonuses. This doesn't test your strategy skills, just a sloppy excuse on the programmer's behalf. "We can't be bothered to make the AI more cunning, so we'll just give it a handicap, 2 minute job, won't even play test."
So, one is left in limbo, between an easy 'fair' mode, and a frustrating and unfair 'hard' mode.
Yes, supposed to be hard, not impossible.
I agree, the game is still rather slow and tedious with stupid AIs, and a combat system which although is great for humans, too complicated for AIs.
The first improvement to Civ 5 could be to scrap the current diplomacy system and reinstate the Civ 4 one. At least the +s and -s made sense, and had hidden values for unpredictability.
For fun mainly, although I like a challenge. The problems come when 'balanced' mode, is too easy, and then 'hard' mode is just silly - the AIs aren't smarter at all, just get game breaking economic bonuses. This doesn't test your strategy skills, just a sloppy excuse on the programmer's behalf. "We can't be bothered to make the AI more cunning, so we'll just give it a handicap, 2 minute job, won't even play test."
So, one is left in limbo, between an easy 'fair' mode, and a frustrating and unfair 'hard' mode.
Yes, supposed to be hard, not impossible.
I agree, the game is still rather slow and tedious with stupid AIs, and a combat system which although is great for humans, too complicated for AIs.
The first improvement to Civ 5 could be to scrap the current diplomacy system and reinstate the Civ 4 one. At least the +s and -s made sense, and had hidden values for unpredictability.
So long as the AI can handle some acceptable minimum threshold for formation combat, I'm content.
The AI's inability to handle 1upt is totally blown out of proportion by the complete lack of non-militaristic approaches to the game. The stream-lined tech tree and derelict diplomacy system are so shallow that they've become window dressing to constant war. Add in the lack of mini-games (religion/espionage in CIV), and you can't help but focus on the AI's greatest weakness in any of the CIV games, it's inability to handle combat.
As I said, there's a minimum threshold that's acceptable, but it's really only acceptable when the game offers several different gameplay approaches.
I was tremendously disappointed when I first found out that CSs can't expand; any cities they capture auto-raze once out of anarchy. Guiding a CS to global domination is exactly what the community needs, not because everyone will play it, but because just one guy will play it well and post a awesome report about it.
How far would CIV have gotten without Spain on a Lake? Far enough, I suppose, but the community is certainly what kept me coming back.
Now the community is a mixed bag of trolls (GJ "expanding" the playerbase), veterans who are disappointed with the game, some devoted fans (primarily first-time Civ'ers), and a posse of forumfans who feel obliged to refute/report any negative comments about the game.
And with that, I'm moving way off topic.
Doctor Phibes
Prince
Well, yes. I can't help but agree with you there. Essentially we have the worst of all worlds, a broken combat system plus a game where the only real 'fun' is to be had from combat. (You can pat yourself on the back for winning peacefully, but it's going to be a long long boring slog.)
On the other hand, if the broken 1upt system would not matter if other approaches to victory were more fun, then the same argument could be placed for SoDs (it looks to me like most people do not consider Civ4 broken even when they loathe SoDs) - or my preference, limited stacking.
I like that idea. I've been thinking that CSs should be more like embryonic Civs, perhaps they simply lack a leader or something. At the moment they are simply a way of dumping magic resources into the game system (I deeply disapprove of this approach in general, actually, even though the maritimes have been rightly nerfed). Random idea - when a civ is wiped out, the leader escapes to lead a random CS to civhood. Montezuma, Emperor of Stockholm...)
Only trouble is there has to be some reason why full civs do not simply mop up all the CSs straight away. Right now, the magic resources mean it's not usually in one's self-interest, which is the only reason they get to live.
Doctor Phibes
Prince
Oh by the way, earlier post should read:
'(and hopefully *not* on Steam, making existing Civ4 installations dependent on that risks alienating a whole new bunch of people - big time).'
Trouble is, I can imagine Civ4.5, if it ever happened, introducing us to the wonderful world of Civ4 DLC...
'(and hopefully *not* on Steam, making existing Civ4 installations dependent on that risks alienating a whole new bunch of people - big time).'
Trouble is, I can imagine Civ4.5, if it ever happened, introducing us to the wonderful world of Civ4 DLC...
the343danny
Emperor
Just a heads up, you can disable that in the advanced options before the game.
Doctor Phibes
Prince
With you on that.
(Hah - that allows for an idea. Rebel cities that turn into independent city states, just as city states that conquer another city can become a Civ (or maybe one or more CSs can agree to become a Civ). There's a still a problem with magic food etc tho, so there needs to be a different definition of city state. Of course, there's the colony concept from Civ4 too.
Actually I think it would also be fun if Civs near the bottom of the pecking order were able to agree to merge peacefully to create one single more competitive civ (if they were on really good terms already of course).
I generally like the idea of a kind of organic fragmentation/coalescence.
Yes, that's an entirely different game. But just one of the problems with Civ5 is that it needs lots of the complexity Civ4 evolved over time restored to it.)
wurstburst
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 301
It happened in my current game (pangea/standard size/emperor). Around turn 280, America has a 9% approval rating. I saw 3 anti-tank guns spawn in their territory.
So...confirmed.
KahunaGod
Warlord
This. Exactly This. Dead Frakking On. Its like the designers dont have any idea what the games strategies are supposed to be. I think they are just re-arranging deck chairs.
Me too! Prince is fine for now. I have to play some more games at this level before moving on to King. I am having a great time playing as well.
So, if you cannot beat the game at a difficulty level... that must mean it is IMPOSSIBLE?
I'm sure there are plenty of players who can beat post-patch Civ V on Emperor or higher. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you are simply playing at a level above your abilities? Or is your "pride" keeping you from admitting that?
There are several XML files controlling the AI's combat choices. As far as I can tell, they'll require trial-and-error to tweak into something more respectable, but after looking through them I think the AI is being undersold. The patch brought some upgrades to ranged combat, but it appears those changes were little more than XML tweaks.
Basically, the AI was given the tools to handle ranged combat, and then given priorities that generally focused away from ranged combat, to the point where even ranged units were behaving as non-ranged. Things like low chance to actually use a ranged attack, low chance for ranged units to retreat when threatened, low ranged unit production in general, etc.
I think you were onto something when you suggested that they should be more like an extension of CIV's colony system. As they stand, they're like a regression of CIV's corporations, which also featured magic food. At least CIV's magic food was linked to something tangible, which is why I label CiV's CS system a regression.
The AI is very unlikely to target CSs in that way. I couldn't give you odds, but they're low. It's far more likely to ignore them entirely, even if it's pursuing a diplomatic victory.
skallben
Diplomat
Of course there is. I play my first game on Emperor, allways won that before patch, easily winning this aswell. I did notice a difference but this talk of harder difficulties being too difficult is just silly, making the AI compete better with less handicap bonuses should be what we all want.
I know there are many people who can beat emperor or above, but still only through cheese tactics mainly.
Even on the latest polycast, it was discussed that only huge empires can keep up with the AI.
The way people beat Emperor or higher is through the usual AI exploits of:
- Settling a second city, selling it, buy large army then reclaiming your city then wipe out the rest of that ai
- Settling on a resource and selling it, then buying units to do as above
- Selling all your resources to an AI for lots of gold, upgrade all your units, then declare war and march right into their territory (reclaiming resources)
- Setting up defensive positions where the AI will constantly suicide you
- The list goes on...
The point is, you should be able to beat the AI on the higher levels, without being forced to exploit it to keep up.
But of course - if you couldn't beat the game on Emperor, then all those players who could MUST be cheating and resorting to cheesy exploits, right? It can't be possible that they are just playing a better game, right?I know there are many people who can beat emperor or above, but still only through cheese tactics mainly.
Even on the latest polycast, it was discussed that only huge empires can keep up with the AI.
The way people beat Emperor or higher is through the usual AI exploits of:
- Settling a second city, selling it, buy large army then reclaiming your city then wipe out the rest of that ai
- Settling on a resource and selling it, then buying units to do as above
- Selling all your resources to an AI for lots of gold, upgrade all your units, then declare war and march right into their territory (reclaiming resources)
- Setting up defensive positions where the AI will constantly suicide you
- The list goes on...
The point is, you should be able to beat the AI on the higher levels, without being forced to exploit it to keep up.
I am sure few people here at CFC have beaten Immortal/Diety with the new patch.
The point is, you should be able to beat the AI on the higher levels, without being forced to exploit it to keep up.
I strongly disagree.
There is nothing wrong in having hardest difficulty level unbeatable. That is whole point of the difficulty setting. You choose one that you like to play.
Fabien
Warlord
I know there are many people who can beat emperor or above, but still only through cheese tactics mainly.
Even on the latest polycast, it was discussed that only huge empires can keep up with the AI.
The way people beat Emperor or higher is through the usual AI exploits of:
- Settling a second city, selling it, buy large army then reclaiming your city then wipe out the rest of that ai
- Settling on a resource and selling it, then buying units to do as above
- Selling all your resources to an AI for lots of gold, upgrade all your units, then declare war and march right into their territory (reclaiming resources)
- Setting up defensive positions where the AI will constantly suicide you
- The list goes on...
The point is, you should be able to beat the AI on the higher levels, without being forced to exploit it to keep up.
Sorry, but it's extremely easy to win on emperor without using any of the stuff listed above. I'm not an especially good player and I never lost a game on Emperor and I'm sure there are plenty of people who can play without Anti-AI tactics and can win on Immortal or higher.
skallben
Diplomat
The point is, you should be able to beat the AI on the higher levels, without being forced to exploit it to keep up.
That is a misconception tbh. Noone is forced to resort to exploits, you make those rules yourself where to draw the line. Emperor is very beatable without exploits like those you mentioned, probably at least Immortal aswell.
About big empires being needed to keep up, yes that has some truth to it but I'd say it has more to do with how science works. If you go on a conquering spree, you're gonna get loads of research from base population added. Puppet research needs a nerf.
Problems can be solved.
Similar threads
