Gods and Kings: my units are even weaker now!!!

What's happening with Gods and Kings?

On emperor difficulty, my units are even weaker then before while AI brings up even bigger number of never ending units having distinctive advantage in science and production at the same time. Impossible to play, unless you start up in a very lucky geographical position!

In the past, my knight used to kill a catapult, my pikeman used to kill a knight, my longswordsman used to kill a pikeman. NOW it takes three attacks in a row by different unit to kill a single enemy unit, while the enemy kills you instantly almost always. Faith attack bonuses don't actually play any considerable role, and so on - lots of bugs (AI huge advantages).

I thought G&K is going to be an improvement from this point of view, but it is actually worse. Anyone knows what is going on?

Most people like a challenge. Judging by the number of people who play and win on immortal and diety, I would say that there are probably some things you are doing wrong/inefficiently.

Are you leaving your units in vulnerable positions or are you setting up a good defensive position on hills/forests? behind rivers? with units helping to flank for each other? are you promoting properly?

if you find emperor too difficult, then move down a level. it is quite simple...aren't you happy that the game poses a challenge and you can't just steamroll through on the higher difficulties?

Here's a tip: beeline Great Wall and finish it before T100, T110 at latest.

Check the numbers, pikes and long swords were rebalanced. Siege engines are weaker now, use archer type units instead. Try to get them up to range before upgrading them to gatling guns.

do you have a picture or video of this?

Thanks for responses.

Well, I know how to position units, how to engage in combat, to defend, etc - I have started playing civ two decades ago, so this is not a question.

I destroy a whole army, and then another one comes in a few turns, and so on - no end to this. If AI has a siege unit in a city, that's one of my units killed every turn (bombardment + archer). I had two bowmen, one catapult, 4 pikeman, 1 spearman, 2 horsemen - I couldn't take over a city with 20 defence!! All my units were killed one by one. Or, I attack a knight with pikemen, half-half damage, the next turn AI uses one archer and the same knight to kill my pikemen - what's the point?!?

Apart from the problems above, I have noticed that all city states constantly give units to all AI's in big quantities, while I am lucky to get a unit from a militaristic friend/ally once in a blue moon. In many cases when I ally with a city state, the next turn Elizabeth or Alexander, or someone else, ally with them - even in situations when they have only two-three cities, so there's no way for me to keep my alliance long enough. Also, some civ's (e.g. iroquois) grew incredibly fast with vast amounts of scientific advantage (is the lead developer a Canadian?).

This is not about a challenge - this is about a fair approach and being able to enjoy the game, rather than wondering where all these enemy units are coming from and why are my own units so weak despite the faith/culture/terrain bonuses I try to facilitate.

The bottom line is: good idea with the expansion, not good implementation once again - I am not even talking about PC resources it requires!!! Very, very slow, even for a standard map.

vahe said:

This is not about a challenge - this is about a fair approach and being able to enjoy the game, rather than wondering where all these enemy units are coming from and why are my own units so weak despite the faith/culture/terrain bonuses I try to facilitate.

Click to expand...

If you consider Emperor as unfair and unenjoyable as a result, downgrade to King or Prince.

It's supposed to be 'unfair' on anything beyond Prince and the diffculty level description even tells you so.

Having that said, I never noticed any of the problems you mentioned (typically playing on Emperor for relaxing games whilst watching TV or immortal if I'm up for a challenge).

The game is there for the sole purpose of enjoyment, so I don't see the point of you complaining about the game being unfair at a difficulty level that tells you the AI will receive huge bonuses (which could be considered unfair) whilst you could just pick a 'fairer' level .

vahe said:

In the past, my knight used to kill a catapult, my pikeman used to kill a knight, my longswordsman used to kill a pikeman. NOW it takes three attacks in a row by different unit to kill a single enemy unit, while the enemy kills you instantly almost always. Faith attack bonuses don't actually play any considerable role, and so on - lots of bugs (AI huge advantages).

Click to expand...

Your knight should still kill the catapult, unless you're confusing with the trebuchet and/or being flanked/GG near/etc.

With Civil Service now later in the tech tree, and the fact that they're both still medieval untis, it makes sense to give pikeman more durability.

And what's this about CS giving more units? Pretty sure they give the same, the AI just build more units (now they buy them with excess gold too with fall patch).

Also lol @ the Canadian developed comment. But yeah, Hiawatha AI is owning too many people late it seems.

Billy Rubin said:

If you consider Emperor as unfair and unenjoyable as a result, downgrade to King or Prince.

Click to expand...

Bingo. The purpose of a game is to be a generally enjoyable pastime. Like Mr. Rubin, I play one difficulty for a nice bit of relaxation (King) and go to Emperor the days I desire a great challenge.

Could be partly due to the health changes. Since units have 100 health instead of 10, there is less rounding. It takes a bit to get used to, but I think the change is good.

Tachii said:

But yeah, Hiawatha AI is owning too many people late it seems.

Click to expand...

Prolly something to do with lack of iron requirement and tendency to actually use gold now rather than sit on it. IMO, Hiawatha has the deadliest early game rush. You can shrug off most civs, but when those Mohawk Warriors surround your city and four hits from CB's only bring down a single unit by half, you realize the game is going to go south.

There is that small window in between spears and pikes where I suspect if he attacks another AI, he is guaranteed to win.

I don't play multi, but from what I understand, Iroquois rush there is popular.

Ok. Playing on KING now.

Two AI's around me: Aztecs (2 cities) and Roman (4 cities).

I have 2 cities (Huns) BUT build 5 wonders already (including great wall), and am the most literate.

War starts. Romans first. No end of them. I managed to kill around 15 units, losing a few of mine, then finally they take my city, I take it back, then again and again. Now peace - they pay me actually.

Aztecs turn - they also "fight" againts Greeks from the other side, which are much larger. Remember, they have only 2 cities... so... units after unit coming my way, every turn I see 3 aztec units, I kill a few, then again 3 new ones, and so on, and so on. No end. I cannot advance or do anything because my capital with so many wonders built and 13 population (largest now in fact) produces a unit only in 5-6 turn. The other city, which also has a lot of improvements in and around, with mines etc, produces a unit in 10-12 turns. Despite having only a few units, my gold is -5 per turn, doesn't get better.

I have got 3 CITADELS. My knights attack catapuls only to receive slightly less damage then catapults. Almost impossible to kill an enemy swordsman with a knight - joke? My knight on full strength cannot kill enemy swordsman on aroudn 10% strenght (major defeat indicated).

Now this: both Aztecs and Romans who fight with me... fight with OTHER MUCH BIGGER CIVS AT THE SAME TIME!!!

This game is SO ANNOYING to play, unless you are very lucky right at the start. Whoever says they can always win are lying - that's wrong, cannot be.

Poor development once again from CIV team. Great advantages given to AI.

smallfish said:

Here's a tip: beeline Great Wall and finish it before T100, T110 at latest.

Click to expand...

Can someone help me out with this statement? It always seemed that the Great Wall was too much of an investment for what it does and the AI likes to go for it most of the time anyways.

vahe said:

I cannot advance or do anything because my capital with so many wonders built and 13 population (largest now in fact) produces a unit only in 5-6 turn. The other city, which also has a lot of improvements in and around, with mines etc, produces a unit in 10-12 turns. Despite having only a few units, my gold is -5 per turn, doesn't get better.

I have got 3 CITADELS. My knights attack catapuls only to receive slightly less damage then catapults. Almost impossible to kill an enemy swordsman with a knight - joke? My knight on full strength cannot kill enemy swordsman on aroudn 10% strenght (major defeat indicated).

Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't understand some of the core concepts of the game. The issues you listed are largely exaggerated, and avoidable.

- Building too many wonders results in a weak military, it is the intended trade-off. ~5 turns per unit is about average.

- Second city is surrounded by mines, but how many of them are being worked? If the city population is low, it is probably using all available citizens to work food tiles. Click on the city management window to see what mines are actually being worked.

- Gold per turn is the same. You only get the gold if it is being worked by citizens. Where else were you spending upkeep? Roads? Workers?

Social policy is usually a deciding factor as well. Honor and Liberty tend to be hard on gold unless you know how to micromanage well. Go Tradition and pick up Monarchy. It is the easiest and most forgiving start. (Also has reduced unit upkeep and strengthened city attack)

- Swordsman was likely bunkered down on a hill/forest tile. A great general, promotions, and in the case of Aztecs, upgraded Jags with forest promotion, are more than capable at holding their own against units from a complete era ahead. That swordsman probably had a combat strength closer to 30 than 14.

Counter by using the terrain and promotions yourself.


AI bonuses on King are quite low. What you are experiencing is partly your own mistakes, and partly how the Aztecs are programmed. They are notorious for spending the first 60 turns doing nothing except cranking out military units and starting early wars.

Arachnofiend said:

Can someone help me out with this statement? It always seemed that the Great Wall was too much of an investment for what it does and the AI likes to go for it most of the time anyways.

Click to expand...

Makes it extremely difficult to capture cities, especially when combined with range. Shoot enemy unit from two tiles away. Enemy moves one tile. Move back one tile, shoot enemy two tiles away. Enemy moves one tile. Rinse and repeat.

Inca, with their hill promotions, also benefit. Combined with slinger's ability to avoid most melee attacks, it is a very strong defense.

It sounds like military tactics are the weak point in your game holding you back. Also it sounds like you may not be building quite the minimum army necessary to hold off the attacks you're getting. By that point in the game I would feel comfortable with about 4 archer type units and a couple of melee types. If the attack lasts long enough you may need one or two more melee units for reinforcements. A horse or two is a nice bonus, but as with siege units I would be using them more as an investment in the future (getting them all xp'd up for the offensive, more true for the siege than the horse).

You usually won't want to waste your melee units health on attacks unless you've already broken the enemy's attack and are cleaning up his units. Find a decent defensive position for your archers to tear down the enemy attack and fortify your melee units to turn it into a great defensive position. It's easier when you can use a city (their health regeneration is very strong), but sometimes the terrain may be so good somewhere else that you're better off there. Defensive buildings are important. Walls in particular are quite a bargain for what they do.

You're not trying to block your enemy. You're trying to choke their advance so that they can't get very many units in at any one time. You want a couple melee units to attack your city. It will do a lot of damage back to them and allow you to eliminate them before they get a chance to heal. You just can't let so many get close at once that they can do way more damage than your city can heal back. Some common situations to look for are good defensive/firing positions that allow you to position your melee units next to your city and your ranged behind the city, leaving the front of the city to the enemy. Also positions where your battle line runs parallel to the approach to your city but to the side can be very effective if the terrain favors it (i.e. for terrain or political reasons they can't get behind your line).

One thing that is always a tricky decision is what unit to attack. If you can eliminate all the melee units in an attack quickly that can be a good way to go. They can't capture the city with a ranged unit even if they drop it to 0 health so you're free to take some time finishing off their archers safely. It's risky though if they bring up a reserve horse that you can't get in time you're screwed. Sometimes it's better to let their melee sit there and slowly heal up while you clean out their ability to do real damage to your city with their archers. You pretty much always want to eliminate siege units asap. They do a ton of damage and go down fast.

OP - Selective memory at its finest.

You kill AI units just as easily as they kill yours. You're probably forgetting terrain bonuses or other bonuses or something.

BTW: Reading about your playing on King. Why are you attacking stuff with your Knight? Attack stuff with ranged. Let the AI attack you first and finish him off with ranged, or your knight once you've lured them out.

Cheers.

One thing I`ve found about battles in G&K is you really need to think ahead before attacking, especially when attacking a city. It`s really smart to have all your forces ready and to attack together and hard to break enemy troops or city defences. Supporting each other`s units is important. Attacking one at a time without any thought almost always leads to defeat.

It`s actually quite realistic to real warfare in this respect.

What you're running into seems to be a problem people have been running into since civ 1.

Wonders are tempting and lure people into neglecting their military (I can tell - I'm a wonder-monger myself).

Having more wonders makes you more attractive to be attacked because AI civ's may want to sack those wonders.
At the same time, the hammers spent on wonders have obviously not been spent on on military units, making you an even more attractive target.

There's an old roman adage that applies to the civ series pretty well: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Cheers guys, very good points!

I must assure you I do use very similar battle tactics. I fortify units in smart places, I build citadels and fortresses where best suited, I position archers behind cities on hills, and kill enemy units.

Another "bad" example: fighting with Romans. They have 3 cities, I have 2. I am more advanced technologically. They go to war. Here come several legions, a few balistas and archers. I have 2 citadels with bowmen, a few horsemen, several bowmen, a spearman and a great general. My city has a defence rating of 20 or so. Almost all my units killed, despite me trying to defend only. I have killed all roman units. A few turns pass - here we go again, several units coming from their side again. I kill them as well, but only one bowman left from my side. A few turns pass - AGAIN same amount of units from Romans, and they take my city! How is that possible, can someone explain? To make things worse... they are also in battle with another AI. A total nonsense.

Anyway, these are my main points about G&K:

a) AI has even greater military advantage then before;

b) AI has huge construction and science advantage;

c) AI has very big alliance advantage - how come that e.g. Alexander or Darius or English are allied with most city states, having only a few cities themselves? That is impossible to achieve for a normal player;

I understand that maybe for some people it's fine, but I'd like to see more balanced AI, when a player competes against something realistic and not completely disadvantaged from all points of view.

In CIV5 king and emperor, most times when things went well for me personally were when my location has been very strategic: hidden by mountains/blocked by water tiles.

Billy Rubin said:

There's an old roman adage that applies to the civ series pretty well: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Click to expand...

Too true. Even more successful in Civ is si vis pacem fac bellum (if you want peace, make war).