Anyone else finding G&K *easier* than before?

Hey folks -

This is not at all a thread to brag (I can easily acknowledge I'm far and away not the best player here), but wondering if some of my fellow fanatics are in the same boat.

I play on King. Usually with Japan going for a Domination Victory. Before the expansion, I stuggled sometimes because of a runaway AI that somehow had huge money reserves, a tech advantage (since it could do Research Agreements with every other AI out there), and a carpet of doom over on their continent (once on mine - which did not end well for me).

Now I trounce on King. In every game I've played. I rarely see the kind of runaway AIs that troubled me in the past. Indeed, all the AIs and I tend to be relatively on the relatively level playing field until I start to run away with the game. No weak Civs, no super strong ones. The improvements in naval combat means a intercontinental invasion is more palatable, and the research agreements/great scientist nerf means no one can get ahead on techs without really focusing on that.

Maybe I'm just using the new mechanics surprisingly well (I *love* religion), or maybe I've just improved. But, after hearing so many people on the boards mention the game has gotten better and more challenging (and I agree!), I'm surprised to find I'm having an easier time ultimately walking away with games.

I'm going to try moving up a rank, something I wasn't considering in CiVanilla. Anyone else feeling the same?

Yes, it seems easier to me. Part of the issue is that some of the new civs, including DLC civs, are extremely good. Players (including me) tend to use these superior civs more frequently than the AI. For instance, I've recently become hooked on Ethiopia, which has an amazing UB and an awesome UA on higher levels. The UU is also pretty good. Austria is another new awesome civ. Mayans are also great, and Korea (DLC) might be too good.

Edit: I forgot to mention the Huns. I haven't played them yet, but they seem downright silly if you get the right start.

I think a large part has to do with religion. It is so easy to use religion to your advantage as a human player, it really works well combined with a sound grand strategy. Also, AI does not seem to prioritize religion as much.

I think it would be easier for anyone who goes after naval domination as it's a lot simpler to capture a city with a ship than it is to risk sending land units across the ocean.

CYZ said:

I think a large part has to do with religion. It is so easy to use religion to your advantage as a human player, it really works well combined with a sound grand strategy. Also, AI does not seem to prioritize religion as much.

Click to expand...

Actually, in my first game on King, I lost out on founding a Religion (which I was actually going for!). I still whomped my next door neighbors (managed to take out the Iroquois, who had built the Great Wall I wanted), then went straight across the continent to say hello to my friends the Maya.

But, yes, the super production religion I tend to create does help a lot.

It is easier all the way up to Deity...where I think it has become harder. Largely due to the way the AI grabs religions so fast on Deity and there's a good chance you'll get locked out of it at that level. Nor can you rely on things like Stonehenge to make up for this at deity.

The game is damn near unplayable at that level, at least if you want to fully enjoy religion. I wish they throttled back the AIs faith production at that level, it is way too fast. I feel forced into using non religious civs at this level, but my favorite new civ is Byzantium.

It's a lot simplier because AI expand less than vanilla

very much so

I have noticed so far in my games, only about ten so it doesn't mean a lot, that things are much more stable also. I see a lot of fighting going on out there but not a whole lot of conquering unless it's me doing it.

I think the changes to combat has made it less likely that civs will conquer eachother, resulting in fewer instances of a monster runaway that hoses you off the map. Then again I've only played a small number of games so far so I'll reserve judgement.

One thing I'm dissapointed in is the ease with which you can still get a science victory in a really short amount of time. I've nowhere near played a close to perfect science game yet, and have a lot of little things I'm going to do differently next time which I know will reduce turns. Still I've won 3 games in a row all around T220. I was hoping that the optimal time woud be pushed back to around 300 turns. It seems like sub 200 is still possible which I don't think is ideal in a 500 turn game.

snarzberry said:

Still I've won 3 games in a row all around T220. I was hoping that the optimal time woud be pushed back to around 300 turns.

Click to expand...

What are you doing to launch around t220? It'd be great if you could expand on it.

snarzberry said:

11648980the changes to combat has made it less likely that civs will conquer eachother, resulting in fewer instances of a monster runaway that hoses you off the map. Then again I've only played a small number of games so far so I'll reserve.

Click to expand...

I've seen AI civs rub out other civs so it does happen. A lot depends on the personality IMO

I've seen the monster runaway. Catherine in particular nearly always pulls it off.

I've only completed 2 games of GaK, but I've probably played 10+ games of vanilla. Russia still seems to be just as much of a beast as always, and the nations that really focus on CS alliances seem to be doing well (Greece, Austria, etc.). Although there seems to be an added emphasis on how the AI nations start out.

The war countries (America, Germany, etc.) seem to be more warlike (especially Japan), and more often declare war for various reasons.

CYZ said:

I think a large part has to do with religion. It is so easy to use religion to your advantage as a human player, it really works well combined with a sound grand strategy. Also, AI does not seem to prioritize religion as much.

Click to expand...

I think part of it is that the AI's tend to pick horrible traits. For instance, the +30% to city attack. Or gain faith when winning a battle near a city when they are on their own island.

I'm finding that being peaceful is immensely more difficult in G and K. My few peaceful games since G and K came out, I was utterly annihilated by vast AI forces I couldn't possibly have withstood with my very few units. However I've found that warring from the beginning of the game is easier than in Vanilla.

Lexicus said:

I'm finding that being peaceful is immensely more difficult in G and K. My few peaceful games since G and K came out, I was utterly annihilated by vast AI forces I couldn't possibly have withstood with my very few units. However I've found that warring from the beginning of the game is easier than in Vanilla.

Click to expand...

Totally second that from the point of view of warring effectiveness and the peace game being more elaborate. From what I'm seeing the AI is struggling to capture cities against humans but also against other AI's. A VEM mod for GnK would go along way to redressing this. I'm not saying they can't capture cities, but it's holding them up and slowing them down and causing them to waste resources and time. It can also impact on their strategies because even if their strategies are reasonable, they need to be able to implement them somewhat more effectively.

Cheers

Txurce said:

What are you doing to launch around t220? It'd be great if you could expand on it.

Click to expand...

Briefly, I go Tradition - Rationalism (working the tech tree so you can open Rationalism directly afterwards is tricky, but if you miss out just spend one point in Commerce/Patronage)

3 or 4 cities total, depending on the map.

PT is a must, leaning tower is much desired. The tech path I've been going is early development techs then through Metal Casting to Leaning Tower tech. Build workshops asap, station one engineer in the capital. Then tech through Education and on to the PT tech. Use the great engineer when it pops on the Leaning Tower or PT, whichever one you think you'll be least likely to be able to hard build. I've found that t150 - t160 is a fairly safe window to complete PT on deity.

Stay completely peaceful and sign as many DoF's as possible. Max RAs.

I'm still working out how late to settle academies, I think you should settle them quite late as I've discovered RAs are much more powerful than I previously thought. I've outlined the power of late RAs and the implications for settling v bubling in this thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=468493

Having a great religion start, like desert floodplains, where you don't have to invest more than a shrine to found a religion by approximatley t70 - t80 will save you significant turns as you get at least 2 GS at the end of the game from faith on top of the game long benefits.

research labs, spaceship factories yadda yadda. In the last game I experimented with saving Oxford till the very end to bulb one of the most expensive techs, but I think the best bet is to use Oxford to ensure you get to Renaisannce quickly enough to open Rationalism after Tradition.

Still have a lot to tinker with but sub 250 is pretty managable even without a religion and I think sub 200 is possible.

Yes. I've only played G&Ks on Emperor so far, so I might change my mind when I eventually go back to Immortal, but so far the game seems easier.

I'm not sure what it is exactly, but the AI's seem to have smaller armies, slower tech and less rapid expansion than before. Happiness also seems easier to come by for the player.

I think the slower tech rate is probably to do with the new RAs requiring friendship before they can be signed. I used to see loads of RAs between AIs in vanilla, but in G&Ks I might only see 10 all game, if that. The RAs the AIs do manage to get are also less powerful for AIs with a mediocre or poor science rate, so that also water's down RAs for the AIs further. Also, a decent human player can squeeze the most out of an RA, while most AIs (I guess) will not do so.

I don't know why AI's don't expand as much and I'm not sure why they don't seem to bother much with the hoards of units they used to have either. I'm not a fan of hoards, but a few more would be a good thing. The only AI I've seen so far with a sizeable force (around 20 units on a large pangaea map) was Genghis, every other AI in the same game seemed to be content with less than 10.

Idk really, but yes, level for level G&Ks does seem a bit easier than vanilla Civ5, but on the other hand, it is more layered now with some nice additions, so its a fair bit more fun to play now too.

At first it seemed easier, but I was getting some kind of bug where the AI wasn't expanding. They quickly fixed that bug whatever it is. The game is definitely harder if the AI expands as it normally does.

It's both harder and easier, because the easy tools given to you the player can be turned back on your face by the AI.