Difficulty

[Dave Lawson]

I gotta say, I'm incredibly impressed with FF and with FFH1&2 for that matter.
An outrageous amount of effort goes in to making something like this, and my hat's really off to you folks for helping everyone to enjoy the game more.

That said, I'm having some issues with this game. Most particularly in terms of the adequacy of the AI. I've played several games (at least a couple dozen) and am left largely not wanting to continue on account of the lack of challenge. I've messed with some of the settings (awesome to add new game settings btw), and I was hoping that the adaptive difficulty setting would put me in my place. Several times, I've found myself in short order at the very top of the difficulty ladder, but still safely ahead in first place. I realise that some civs lend themselves to high early scores (the explorers and jotun come to mind) but even with the more typical civs it seemed to happen.

I realize that making the AI 'smart' is perhaps the greatest challenge of all, especially with the flood of new avenues it must consider. I was wondering if there are particular set-ups that you vets play on to ensure a real challenge? I don't so much mean by gimping yourself (such as playing in greatplains as the lanun for instance, or choosing never to build cavalry as hippus), but rather situations in which the AI behaves is a more intelligent way.

I've aborted several games once my score is triple the next player's, and I'll turn on the world builder before I quit. Often I see strange things, like a typical (ie not scions) civ that has still just got one city, with 8 or so units in it, lots of space to expand, and apparently no plans to do so. Right beside them will be another civ, also a typical civ, that has 5 cities and is motoring along (although still slowly).

In particular I've noticed the hippus, doviello, illians bannor and clan of embers civs typically succeed in expanding, to some extent.

Sure I blame some of this on the volatile nature of elements in this mod, such as powerful barbarians, and finding nasty stuff in dungeons. But after a couple hundred turns, something is going on.

Perhaps there's a map type / enemy civ / game settings / difficulty that evens things up?

 

[Iceciro]

Are you playing on a single continent map? The AI doesn't handle naval warfare. I don't mean "not well" I mean at all.
I don't have any issues in my game with the AIs expanding to fill every nook and cranny of usable space, though. So that's pretty odd.

 

[WarKirby]

I'd recommend putting your enemies on teams. Instead of 8 individual opponents, try 4 teams of two,


Since they share research form the start, they'll usually get ahead of you in tech, but more importantly, they'll get to vital economic techs earlier, usually before they expand much

But if you're really suicidal, might I recommend enabling "AI No Minimum levels" and putting the ljosalfar in the game. Enjoy being swarmed by satyrs

 

[readercolin]

I highly recommend "Ai no minimum levels" and "Ai no building requirements" on, as well as agressive AI. War is alot nicer in FFH than it is in regular civ 4, with it being easier to conduct a war at all levels of the game. These 3 settings seem to give the AI the greatest benifits. Otherwise, as warkirby suggested, starting the AI out on teams also gives great benifits. However, I only recommend AI teams on maps of standard size or larger, mostly because otherwise its basically you vs 2 groups of AIs. Also note that hyborem has a MUCH harder time if you do this. Just to make things a little less odd though, when teaming the AI, I find it is best to team them with either premade teams, or "team random good", "team random neutral", and "team random evil". This also tends to encourage more wars and the AI sharing religion and such.

-Colin

 

[Breez]

I think if you combine all the above suggestions you will see a difference. Everyone here is correct.

If you want a challenge:
- don't play on more than one continent Pangea is fine, or Lakes, or Tectonics (30% water) or Great plains, or Highlands.
- Set AI no min level to on
- Set AI no building requirement to on
- Try teaming them up. Try it without a teammate yourself.
- Occasionally go into the world builder and add a worker or 2 for each AI civ.
- When facing orc AI... go into each of their cities and GIVE them the Warrens building. They will NOT build it on their own. (Has anyone ever reported that bug?) Heck give every AI capital a Warrens if you are feeling bold.
- Make sure the sheim are in the game and turn on Double AC.

Also keep in mind the Mecrium and Infernals both seem to be bugged currently in FF.

Lastly change your play style up. Don't power game it. For instance, I never declare war unless requested by another AI or When I play the Calabim (vampires) I try to keep them at good alignment so no using "feast" one of their unique abilities.

Find a way that is fun to you. With my self imposed restrictions I can't go above Noble difficulty and still win.

 

[WarKirby]

I think orcs never building warrens might have something to do with their ridiculous cost. That should probably be tweaked.

 

[Dave Lawson]

Some good ideas in here. Typically I play on a continents style map with about 10 players. I feel a bit dirty if navy doesn't have atleast SOME value in a game. Pangaea would change the later game, but by then it's always been a wash. However, that might change if I mess with the settings like y'all suggested.

I'd really rather not touch the world builder. The second I see the global map, I get the feeling I've compromised the game -- I know where resources, continents, opponenents, choke points, etc. are.

I really like the team idea, and I'm a bit surprised I hadn't thought of that. I've done it plenty in the base game, with amusing if rather painful results.

I'm loathe to remove restriction on units/buildings. It's not the fact that it might be tougher that dissuades, but rather that it could become utterly unwinnable, based largely on random chance (ie running into max level recon units at the start and having one or two of them annihilate your civilization).

Personal restrictions can make games a lot of fun (big Dwarf Fortress fan here!), but I have to say I've never much bothered in civ to try and enforce that sort of thing, other than the one city challenge and other stuff that's in the interface. I've always played it as a strategy game, straight up. This could be good. Maybe play the Bannor and automatically declare war on all non-good races you encounter, while refusing to build any mages, or something? I'll have to think about what sort of limitations would be cool, and fun, and sufficiently hobbling to my effectiveness. Afraid I'm not sufficiently familiar with FF or FFH yet (haven't even played all the civs) to really be able to come up with much here. Hell, I don't even understand what some of the civs do let alone a reasonable way to hobble them. Plus some civs I have played, I still don't really understand (scions come to mind).

Has anyone got some tried and true self-imposed rules that they wouldn't mind sharing? I know my brother is in a similar boat to me (find FF much too easy) and I bet we're not the only two that feel that way. To me a good set of house rules would be something that falls within the spirit of the setting, while making the player weak enough that the AI can keep up. Vampires not drinking blood for instance, isn't something I'm likely to try. No offense intended, it just doesn't work for me.

Also, I was hoping I could get me a list of civ/leader combos that proved particularly effective. I've heard that the pillaging raider(forget the leader's name) hippus are particularly nasty, so I'll definitely be playing against them next time. Any others?

As for map types. I have tried the above mentioned types, but I had a problem with Great Plains. A map was generated that had no mana nodes whatsoever. In fact it only has those basic resources that exist both in the vanilla game and in FF. Did I do something wrong, or is the map script out of date? It particularly sucked, as I was trying to explore spell casters in that game!

 

[WarKirby]

AIs who frequently do well

Arendel Phaedra: Ljosalfar
Dannmos: Dural
Dierdra: Austrin
Flauros: Calabim
Varn Gosam: Malakim
Perpentach: Balseraphs

 

[Iceciro]

Also, the Khazad always seem to do well.

 

[Breez]

I understand not going into the world builder to help the AI if that ruins the game for you.

CURRENTLY the AI sucks at any Navel stuff. I think the game sucks if I have anything besides a single land mass. EVERYTHING I say is based on a single land mass. I don't play any other way.

I'm loathe to remove restriction on units/buildings. It's not the fact that it might be tougher that dissuades, but rather that it could become utterly unwinnable, based largely on random chance

Don't feel that way. Try it. Basically the AI has issues meeting the pre-req's so it doesn't try. Using those features removes the blocks from the AI and lets it actually use some units it may not otherwise do. Definitely give it a shot once.

Try the always at war some time. You auto go to war vs every one always. No trading or Anything.

Some other "Role Play" games I have tired is, myself teamed up with 1 AI both Chiev (American Indian based Civ that is anti-orc) vs. 2 teams of 2 orc civs each. I did this one with the Always at war thing. 2 on 4.

Tried the same idea with 2 Elohim vs 4 Sheiam... yeah THAT went south in a hurry. I got creamed.

Try playing against a multiplayer game with your brother. Can team up, the 2 of you vs what ever number of AI on a team you want. Try the 2 of you vs 10 AI all on one team... I bet you lose that one at most difficulties.

 

[westamastaflash]

Try starting at say, Emperor, and use "Increasing Difficulty", instead of Flexible Difficulty. This way you jump to Deity at turn 150 or so. Also use "aggressive AI"

 

[westamastaflash]

And try playing against Tasunke of the Hippus, Faeryl Viconia of the Elves, and Amelancier (sp.) of the Elves. All 3 are quite aggressive (at least they are against me).

 

[Breez]

If Emperor isn't challenging, in what way does using increasing difficulty make it more challenging? (I really don't mean that as facetious as it sounds, I am actually curious to find out if it does make a difference)

 

[readercolin]

Increasing difficulty means that the AI doesn't start out with extreme advantages, multiple settlers, etc, that it would on deity (and surviving the early game against the AI is what makes deity so difficult - after that it gets easier), but once the initial phase is still passed, then you still have the mid-lategame very powerful AI, but the early game slightly easier AI.

Last thing, if you're willing to give up the shiny new-bits that FF puts in, go and play the wild mana mod from FFH - the economic AI isn't significnatly improved (it is improved some, mostly in choosing to get the early economic techs instead of ignoring them, but not so much in city development), but the biggest change is that the AI will use spells against you - lots of them. And once you've seen an amurite army attacking with mages casting maelstrom and firebows casting fireball before attacking (in a stack of 30 units), you haven't seen a truly dangerous AI. (ok, 30 units is about the largest stack I've seen on monarch - increasing difficulty will increase the size of the AI stacks).

-Colin

 

[WarKirby]

xienwolf has expressed plans to merge in therecent/upcoming FFH patches, including the AI tweaks.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

so the Wild Mana Merge in FFH 0.41 H will actually be useful also for FF? that's some wicked good news

 

[Valkrionn]

Well... If the spell casting/terraforming AI is included, then less work for me!

 

[Iceciro]

As long as the mechanical changes beyond the AI aren't merged, I'd be ecstatic.

 

[Milaga]

I believe Kael said that they were only merging the AI changes from the Wild Mana mod. Calling it a "Wild Mana Merge" is kind of misleading.

 

[WarKirby]

"wild mana" is misleading in general, since that mod is gathering fame for features entirely unrelated to mana