CIV5 too easy in Immortal difficulty
- Thread starter dickens
- Start date
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
It's not about difficulty, it's about fixing the game. If for instance unhappiness would cause real problems, like suggested in Afforess' awesome review, or AI would be fixed so that it can do proper routefindin, then even on King we would be having a hard time, like we should.
If the AI is reatarded then even on megasupadupaSidDeity it will still suck, and the game won't be fun
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
Not sure that's the solution. I think it's weird that you can basically win a game against 10 AIs by conquering exactly 10 cities. Even if they each have 50 other cities as well.
This fact alone lets you approach war completely differently; you don't have to build an army that can reliably conquer the entire enemy, it's perfectly fine if it can only take down one city and protect it.
Sashimi917
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 57
Maybe I suck at this game, I don't find the game easy on Immortal.
I tried a game on Immortal, I focus sorely on military buildup, my capital city had been building military units started from turn 1 except 1 worker, 1 settler and a library. By the time I have the first AI defeated(he declared war on me), all the other AIs already have 6-8 cities and double of my score, an era ahead of me(aided by research agreement spam ).
They constantly waged war with me, and their armies are much larger and advanced than mine. My archers vs their crossbows, and eventually my crossbows vs their musketeers, though I caused heavy casualties to them, but their production seriously outpower me, their more advanced armies arrive waves in waves that I eventually failed to kill all of them, so more and more accumulated near my city and eventually my city falled, so I quited the game.
this, cheater AI.
I tried a game on Immortal, I focus sorely on military buildup, my capital city had been building military units started from turn 1 except 1 worker, 1 settler and a library. By the time I have the first AI defeated(he declared war on me), all the other AIs already have 6-8 cities and double of my score, an era ahead of me(aided by research agreement spam ).
They constantly waged war with me, and their armies are much larger and advanced than mine. My archers vs their crossbows, and eventually my crossbows vs their musketeers, though I caused heavy casualties to them, but their production seriously outpower me, their more advanced armies arrive waves in waves that I eventually failed to kill all of them, so more and more accumulated near my city and eventually my city falled, so I quited the game.
this, cheater AI. 
obsolete
Deity
I'm still so LMFAO @ Greg in that LIVE demonstration, where he got his ass totally kicked by the AI, yet settings were not even on deity. I'm still puzzled how someone so closely involved from this project from the start under Firaxis could play so horribly.
I almost wonder if he was just pretending to be so terrible, in order to sell to the public how great the AI was supposed to be.
Any thoughts?
I almost wonder if he was just pretending to be so terrible, in order to sell to the public how great the AI was supposed to be.
Any thoughts?
r_rolo1
King of myself
That, or he was playing something diferent of the stuff that got out.
About being puzzled by firaxis pleople playing civ games horribly ... well, suposedely no one in BtS beta tests got a AP win
And this with pre 3.13 rules, where it was pretty much the matter of building a wonder and spread the religion to a couple of foreign cities. Greg performance was not so bad, if you take that as benchmark 
OTOH we already had atleast one review from a CFC member that had singlehandedly kicked the @ss out of 3 AI in a modern war on a prince game ( TheMystic ) ... people can't say they weren't warned.
About being puzzled by firaxis pleople playing civ games horribly ... well, suposedely no one in BtS beta tests got a AP win
And this with pre 3.13 rules, where it was pretty much the matter of building a wonder and spread the religion to a couple of foreign cities. Greg performance was not so bad, if you take that as benchmark OTOH we already had atleast one review from a CFC member that had singlehandedly kicked the @ss out of 3 AI in a modern war on a prince game ( TheMystic ) ... people can't say they weren't warned.
Looking at Gregs empire setup as both the Japanese and the Germans you could tell he wasn't as good as a lot of us here. Especially as the Japanese. Most of us with Samurai would have kicked the stuffing out of most of Europe and been finishing off Asia by the time he started his play through.
harveysburger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 9
In Civ4 to win at Emperor you had to micromanage everything, and even get lucky at few things like starting placement and such... It took me quite a while before getting my first win at Emperor, even now I lose more often then not at Emperor...
In Civ5? My first game was at Prince. I am thinking well it's a new game, it's gonna be tough, so let's start easy... I totally destroyed the AI, absolute piece of cake, no challenge whatsoever, then at King difficulty... same thing... damn it was so easy... ridiculous... I should have jumped to a higher level considering how easy it was at Prince
The game is so simple now. Perhaps it was a good move for Firaxis business wise, I guess there is more potential $$$ to be made from casual players then from the existing hardcore players... So I won't blame them. Many players will like Civ5 much more then Civ4... good for them. But for someone who was used to managing every little aspect of the game in order to get as much of an edge as possible against the AI (only way to win at higher levels)... playing Civ5 is a walk in the park... Ok I was only playing at King level... But the game bored me too much (aside from the Social Policies... I actually really like that part)
anyway... that's my 2 cents... the game is too easy...
In Civ5? My first game was at Prince. I am thinking well it's a new game, it's gonna be tough, so let's start easy... I totally destroyed the AI, absolute piece of cake, no challenge whatsoever, then at King difficulty... same thing... damn it was so easy... ridiculous... I should have jumped to a higher level considering how easy it was at Prince
The game is so simple now. Perhaps it was a good move for Firaxis business wise, I guess there is more potential $$$ to be made from casual players then from the existing hardcore players... So I won't blame them. Many players will like Civ5 much more then Civ4... good for them. But for someone who was used to managing every little aspect of the game in order to get as much of an edge as possible against the AI (only way to win at higher levels)... playing Civ5 is a walk in the park... Ok I was only playing at King level... But the game bored me too much (aside from the Social Policies... I actually really like that part)
anyway... that's my 2 cents... the game is too easy...
Infiltrator
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 293
I havent tried deity yet, but I must confess england on deity is a tough nut to crack. The ai is still bad and throws longbows at my melee but he has so many of them that its hard for any civ to try and pound them to submition thanks to their range.
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
That's what I'm hoping for - won first game on King, won second game on Emperor, now winning my third game on Immortal. Boooooriiiiing...
Seriously, you can try to have fun from Civ5, build up culture or whatever, but as soon as one or more of the AI DoWs on you they're toast and its performance completely ruins the fun. Like trying to play competitive chess with a monkey or a toddler
Strange sometimes it feels like we are not playing the same game,
In my current immortal game, Washington DoWed on me in 1120 and came at me with 20 units of minutemen and 3 cannons (not counting 6 spearmen, 5 archer, 2 trebs and 2 muskemen and 5 pikemen from his allied city state). I was lucky I was currently preparing for war against him and ready to receive him with 3 trebs, 2 crossbowmen and 10 suicidal samourai that died with honor but could do little but the war lasted 400 years (time for the 18 units of minutemen to cross the deadzone - he just felt like he was popping a wave of 6 minutemen every 10 turns)
I find this interestingly challenging and I do hope (yes I hope) that he was the only AI so advanced, so strong
In my current immortal game, Washington DoWed on me in 1120 and came at me with 20 units of minutemen and 3 cannons (not counting 6 spearmen, 5 archer, 2 trebs and 2 muskemen and 5 pikemen from his allied city state). I was lucky I was currently preparing for war against him and ready to receive him with 3 trebs, 2 crossbowmen and 10 suicidal samourai that died with honor but could do little but the war lasted 400 years (time for the 18 units of minutemen to cross the deadzone - he just felt like he was popping a wave of 6 minutemen every 10 turns)
I find this interestingly challenging and I do hope (yes I hope) that he was the only AI so advanced, so strong
It wouldn't be a very good demo for the game if it showed him steam rolling the AI with a vastly inferior army because of the AIs stupidity. Actually I am a little curious... I would have guessed that he'd be good at Civ, and I haven't seen him post anything here since the game came out.
Daniel D
Chieftain
I had my doubts about how much of a civ player he was when he didn't know how to pronounce Iroquois in the first play through.
Similar threads
