Game too easy?

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I remember I read someone some time ago complaining that the game was too easy. I suspect much depends on the gameoptions and mapscript chosen. I never found the game really "too easy" with my settings, but in my last game I changed some gameoption and the game suddenly became too easy for me too. So I was wondering, people complaining the game was "too easy" were using Barbarian Civs? Because in my game this option has definitely made the game much easier, even with revolution and flexible difficulty.

 

[valergrad]

I am playing with Barbarian Civs, yes.
Why it make game much easier?

( For me options that make game too easy on higher levels are - "Tech diffusion" and "Realistic research speed " and Field Generals of course ).

 

[<Nexus>]

I don't know how and why Barbarian Cics make the game easier?
Though in my games I always remove 1/3 of the starting civs so there is more space to hunt and explore and BarbCivs can fill the gaps later.
_______________________________

A side note:
@f1rpo seems to make some some AI improvements in his AdvCiv mod. I dunno if anything of those could/should be merged into AND2 but still wanted to mention it.

 

[os79]

I would say that AI code for dealing with suddenly only *game only* disdainfully primitive Barbarians to deal with, that it don't know how to build just enough military to deal with surrounding primitives and focus on steadily consolidate itself. And as for these primitives blossoming into civs, the AI code should evolve with it and be prepared to fight intelligently to survive, then to consolidate itself as well.

I play with BarbCivs and Minor Civs on and yes I notice it is easy even with Flexible Difficulty because in my opinion when you don't have contact with enough civs, the diffusion of techs is only region-wide until ocean travel become a standard experience.

So it's not really gameoptions but rather how AI code had been built for, namely vanilla BtS with its much reduced stuff vs RAND. So how to code AI code such that with much wider range of choices, AI don't get confused but stay commited to whatever is needed to be done EXCEPT in ACTUAL emergencies? That would probably require much study of both vanilla and Better AI code, IMO.

Just my thoughts .

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Well, in my last game I'm far ahead of other civs and I didn't try very hard to tell the truth. I have 18 cities while all other civs have 7 or less and I'm currently playing with flexible difficulty and I'm at Immortal level. I thought Barbarian Civs might be responsible because it's almost the only option I've used in this game which is different from my usual setup. To tell the truth, barbarian civs has a lot of sub-option which might affect the game, but I suspect that with this option there's not enough room for other civs to expand and playing with revolution doesn't allow a civ to easily conquer another civ and keep their cities. But it's just an idea, I was just surprised to find a game so easy while usually it's not.

 

[robbyextreme]

I remember I read someone some time ago complaining that the game was too easy.

I'm guessing you're talking about my thread I made last year?

If so I was just giving feedback rather then complaining. I've been playing this mod on immortal for a few years now so I'll share what I think, for me the problem isn't revolutions or barbarians they add strategy and cap expansion but don't fix the core problem which is production cities and the AI's inability to counter it.

The first screenshot below it's turn 237 and Heliopolis and Memphis can both already endlessly produce cavalry and siege every 2 turns the AI wont be able to stop it with it's 15 archers and few cavalry. Another thing is that unit upkeep is a joke because losing gold per turn doesn't matter it can easily be offset by pillaging and traders which allows mega armies. In the second screenshot the production bonuses are from forge, tannery, fighting pit and warlords. Did not even use warrior caste to hit the 2-turn production timing.

My suggestions would be

• Make unit upkeep matter by either increasing unit upkeep or nerfing pillaging and "Trade mission" from traders
  
• Increase the cost of units so building current-era units will take 4-5 turns and not 2-3 turns. This would be too expensive on maps that don't have hills/forested plains though.
• Increase unit cost in high production cities only (ex. If in Classical Era and a city production is very high the unit cost increases in that city to prevent snowballing) this is better than increasing unit cost universally since that just makes it expensive for people who play maps with few hills.
  
• Have AI prioritize Trade missions to get more gold if they need to match a neighbours military strength.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I wasn't speaking about a specific thread, but I remember in the past other players telling me that under some circumstances the game was too easy. About unit upkeep and gold, I'd rather go on nerfing pillaging as it's been suggested in another thread. I seldom pillage enemy's improvements so I actually never noticed this problem. I use trade missions and sometimes these are keeping me alive while struggling with gold at the beginning of the game, but I'm not sure if they are overpowered. Although since AI doesn't know how to use them properly, nerfing them too might be a good idea. About units cost, that depends on the mapscript, handicap level, mapsize, gamespeed and other factors: I think it's balanced for different game styles. As for snowballing, I suggest using Flexible Difficulty instead of just arbitrarily increasing units cost in high production cities.

 

[robbyextreme]

Ah okay I didn't know unit upkeep scaled differently since I've always played normal speed and standard smartmap. For pillaging I try to always build a Hoard then build 2 horse archers even if you nerf the gold gained it would still be worth it cause of how quickly and safely they can move around while the main army is sieging.

 

[valergrad]

I suggest using Flexible Difficulty

I suggest using Flexible Difficulty

How this works in two words? Is it something that makes game harder for you in case if you playing good? So, like a penalty for a good players?

 

[<Nexus>]

It is changing your handicap level depending on your score. Something you can always change under BUG settings.

 

[valergrad]

It is changing your handicap level depending on your score. Something you can always change under BUG settings.

But in general? The better you playing, the harder is level? So it is penalty for good play?

 

[<Nexus>]

It depends on how you word it. If you play well then the challenge is increased. If you play badly than it is lowered.

 

[os79]

I like Zeta Nexus's way of looking at it. Yes, it is useful when I'm doing great to change the level of handicap toward myself. The AI on its own need lots of logic building at C++ level to successfully be a player challenging enough not to need changing the handicap level.

I'm thinking the next level of solving (IMO) this is fixing Movement Level option then make it a crucial feature in the game. It slows the AI and encourage it to consolidate, both in buildings and placing their units in good place to guard their frontiers. As I said before, this game mod is a big jump up from virgin BtS game options available to AI and its understanding of how to challenge humans.

Again, I like Zeta Nexus's way of looking at it.