First Civ that's too easy to be playable :(

[Thormodr]

FTFY. You see the issue with this reasoning?

Sorry but you didn't fix anything.

Just because the AI is bad in some other 4X games is no excuse for the absolutely horrendous AI in Civilization 5: Beyond Earth.

 

[julystork]

Ever think the reason y'all find BE too easy is because of how much playing Deity on the earlier Civs you're used to?

On the flip side, every think that some people may be picking BE as their first ever 4X game? Firaxis can't go scare them away can they?

But if you ask me, the ALIENS are harder than AIs, I think Firaxis lied to us about them being non-aggressive (or they mean they don't seek out cities to attack until provoked) I learned to never send my military units exploring alone, just uncover one from the fog & a swarm of alien units will gang up focusing on him.

 

[screamingpalm]

Sorry but you didn't fix anything.

Just because the AI is bad in some other 4X games is no excuse for the absolutely horrendous AI in Civilization 5: Beyond Earth.

Agree with this. Why should I get this game when I have Arcen titles that have solid AI and are complex games that offer a nice challenge? Graphics? If mods can improve the game sufficiently I might consider, but...

 

[bhavv]

The only reason why Civ IV was hard was because you build 3 cities and you end up bankrupt.

Also the AI trading away all their techs with one another.

Ok, and stacks of doom.

 

[BlueTemplar]

Soo, it's hard because you actually have to plan your expansion and defenses? (As a player you can exploit tech trading too, or just disable it for everyone or just prevent tech brokering.)

@Thormodr
Except that this issue with the AI could be better fixed by giving them big research bonuses and making them research most of the techs (while still making them specialise somewhat), than by dumbing down the tech web and removing the affinity mechanic.

Again, if you remove every single complex/interesting mechanic that the AI can't deal with then you won't have a 4X game anymore (or a very boring one, a bit like GalCiv2).

In AI War, the AI doesn't play by the same rules as the player at all - that's another way to do it of course, but then can you have both that and interesting multiplayer?

 

[screamingpalm]

In AI War, the AI doesn't play by the same rules as the player at all - that's another way to do it of course, but then can you have both that and interesting multiplayer?

I hear the mp in AI War is a lot of fun (co-op). Admittedly, I haven't gotten around to try it yet and feel like I am still learning new things about the game even after 400+ hrs (I really love the depth and complexity of it).

I was never the biggest Civ fan personally, found other games do singleplayer and AI better, with deeper complexity and higher levels of strategy, and multiplayer is done better elsewhere in TBS as well (always thought the scenarios in Civ V would have made for fun mp games), which leaves my opinion of the series somewhere stuck in limbo- not really excelling in either mode of gameplay.

 

[Elz Majesto]

Well in my last game Elodie did astonishingly well. Second place score, conquered two AIs, and even surprisingly won somehow. She was right next to me so I reloaded and sent a couple of Angels to demolish her cities, only to find that they couldn't capture the cities so I'll just start a new game.

I was too busy getting every single wonder built in my capital as I normally do, and I managed that and got the achievement at last, and also my first game played to over 300 turns.

Yeah, you give her enough space, and she will even make Hiawatha blush. She had Xenotitans protecting her Mindflower in my game, I couldn't even touch em.


I think Firaxis did a great job with this game, and I hope they release a souped up sadomasochist level that gives the AI all the tier 1 ring techs, 1 colonist, 4 of each units, no Unit Maintenance Cost, 4 free affinity levels, and have them start with in 10 tiles of the human player. I would love to see anyone beat that

 

[bhavv]

Soo, it's hard because you actually have to plan your expansion and defenses? (As a player you can exploit tech trading too, or just disable it for everyone or just prevent tech brokering.)

@Thormodr
Except that this issue with the AI could be better fixed by giving them big research bonuses and making them research most of the techs (while still making them specialise somewhat), than by dumbing down the tech web and removing the affinity mechanic.

Again, if you remove every single complex/interesting mechanic that the AI can't deal with then you won't have a 4X game anymore (or a very boring one, a bit like GalCiv2).

In AI War, the AI doesn't play by the same rules as the player at all - that's another way to do it of course, but then can you have both that and interesting multiplayer?

Its only hard due to the player being so severely handicapped.

 

[BlueTemplar]

While co-op can be fun, I specifically meant multiplayer against other human players (be it FFA, 1vs1 or teams).

 

[screamingpalm]

While co-op can be fun, I specifically meant multiplayer against other human players (be it FFA, 1vs1 or teams).

Ah well, in that case it shouldn't matter if the AI plays by different rules than the player, just set options for either co-op vs AI or human players PvP. Having an AI player in FFA or any other PvP scenario in this type of game, is about as fun as walking into a kindergarten classroom and flipping tables while nodding one's head and thumping your chest. Watching a good player like MadDjinn play against this AI feels like wasted talent- like having Stephen Hawking teach rudimentary math at elementary school. As long as he enjoys it though, I suppose that's all that matters.

 

[edingess]

IDK about you guys but the ease comes from a lack of versatility. As I discussed in another thread, there are certain things it seems the AI is incapable of doing like Air Sweeps and properly fielding planes on carriers. If it's just throwing land units and only using air to bomb, then that's where the true issue with the AI lies.

 

[spfun]

AC was easy too!

Apollo feels like Immortal In civ 5, which is very easy. Never a fan of huge AI bonuses, but pity the AI this generation(civ5) never knew how to play its own game.

 

[Dux1]

Remember to keep things in perspective: Only 0.8% of the Steam playerbase has won a game on Apollo so far according to achievement records. About 20% of players have completed a game on any difficulty, so of those, you're still only looking at 4% of players that have finished a game who have won on Apollo difficulty. This cannot fairly be classified as generally easy even if the game is pretty unbalanced right now.

 

[Nouco]

Apollo difficulty= emperor difficulty in Civ 5 according to Madjin.
And I think he is right.
Immortal would start with a worker.
Diety is starting with 2 settlers. That bonus hasn't been made in BE.

 

[Darvon]

Remember to keep things in perspective: Only 0.8% of the Steam playerbase has won a game on Apollo so far according to achievement records.

Tired argument - boilerplate responses

Steam hasn't been correctly logging achievements (many people report beating apollo without any achievements triggering)

Half the people that buy games on steam never actually load them, and if they do only play for an hour or two

Good players often don't hit 'end turn' all the way until the victory screen once it's obvious that they've won

etc. etc.

 

[screamingpalm]

Tired argument - boilerplate responses

Steam hasn't been correctly logging achievements (many people report beating apollo without any achievements triggering)

Half the people that buy games on steam never actually load them, and if they do only play for an hour or two

Good players often don't hit 'end turn' all the way until the victory screen once it's obvious that they've won

etc. etc.

That might be true, but still, depressing stats nonetheless.

I'm sure that Firaxis and Steam have a wealth of data and stats to determine where to spend their design focus. It could very well be that the vast majority play at an extremely casual level (even if Achievements aren't necessarily an accurate stat). I remember the Stardock dev talking about this recently. They can see how their players' games went, why they quit- inevitable win or loss etc.

 

[Dux1]

Half the people that buy games on steam never actually load them, and if they do only play for an hour or two

... which is why I provided an adjusted stat that takes this into account. Of players that have finished the game at all (conservative estimate is 20% of all players who bought the game), only 4% have finished on Apollo. That means that finishing a game in Apollo puts you in the 96th percentile of all Civ BE players who have managed to finish a game. In the real world, that doesn't equate to "easy."

To be clear, I'm not saying that the game couldn't stand to be more difficult. I believe the general consensus is that Apollo level in this game is noticeably easier than Deity level in Civ 5, and the game definitely has its fair share of exploits and imbalances that need to be addressed, but the hyperbole is unnecessary. Generally speaking (i.e., outside the context of expert-level Civ 5 players with 1,500+ hours of experience, far more than your average gamer), it is not accurate to say that Apollo is easy.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Generally speaking (i.e., outside the context of expert-level Civ 5 players with 1,500+ hours of experience, far more than your average gamer), it is not accurate to say that Apollo is easy.

Just because optimal gameplay choices are not intuitive to a CiV newcomer (who hasn't studied the forum or some LPs), doesn't mean the game is actually hard. I still remember when I finally figured out how strong science focus is on CiV on my 3rd or so win, and thinking, "Oh god - is this all there is to it?"

As a new player I didn't expect there to be one single mechanic in the game which revamped your empire's performance completely. It was counterintuitive that a lopsided focus on one mechanic led to success, as opposed to balancing all mechanics (I had never played 4X games before). In other words, I assumed the game was supposed to be as difficult as I was finding it. But even realizing the secret door to success was only enough to make me an Emperor level player.

In BE the hidden door is trade routes and ignoring health penalties - there's no reason for novice players to suspect such a frivolous-seeming tiny feature can generate most of their empire's progress. The tutorial/ advisor doesn't tell them, "no idiot don't build a soldier just spam a new city at no meaningful penalty for 30 free dots haha". I think you could turn half the non-Apollo winners into Apollo winners just after watching one LP. No other practice and mastery of game mechanics needed.

Which seems like bad game design all around. First of all - shouldn't powerful techniques be intuitive? Second - shouldn't the advisers know how to play the game? Third - shouldnt "hard" mode still be hard even when you have learned the powerful techniques?

True difficulty, and true success should be a matter of nuance and judgment in the face of: multiple intuitive bonus paths, complex secondary tactics that require timing and technique, and anticipating more obscure, strongly pertinent external conditions (AIs who can expand / leverage diplomacy to your detriment). Not just "oh, spam TRs."

 

[xamlop]

Good players often don't hit 'end turn' all the way until the victory screen once it's obvious that they've won

Do they ? really ? Hitting alt f4 a few turns before achieving your ultimate goal and being brutally thrown at your desktop icons seems like a sad way to end a game... and who doesn't like the hall of fame ?

 

[Kutuzov]

Good players often don't hit 'end turn' all the way until the victory screen once it's obvious that they've won

etc. etc.

Ahem! Some good players do actually do do this and frequently too. I've yet to play a 4x game of any genre that regularly provides a challenge for the player through to the absolute end every time they play. It often becomes clear that I've won or lost long before the game finishes and then, yes, I'm largely hitting 'end turn' until the victory condition triggers.