And I think that is one of the fallacies - Immortal should not be the level where most play at (ideally it should be 1-2 levels lower). That they have made Immortal slightly more difficult on some maps (missed that part) is a trend in the right direction. I have found, in a limited sample size, that Immortal have become much easier on some maps (which is mainly attributed to better strategies) but that doesn't mean much. I wonder, though, how one could make a direct comparison pre- and post- (i.e., same map, same setup, same location, same everything)?
Immortal has become tougher.
- Thread starter Txurce
- Start date
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
I agree with that. It just seems to me that Immortal can tough, but the one below that (Emperor) is very easy.
I think Buccaneer's is a fair summary. I loaded some saved Diety maps post-patch (figuring dimly recalled map knowledge might help) and got pre-t60-70 dog-piled on three straight games (once by three civs in 2 turns), which used to happen sometimes, but not every time (Disclaimer: I know 3 games is not a statistically significant sample size). Eventually beat them off (after many turns and waves of units - one game I swear Darius had a conveyor belt of Immortals) and had little to show for it (that game I had, at turn 110 or so, 3 cities with pops of 7, 2 and 2 and mostly pillaged tiles - not doing much with that). Immortal is a bit more rough and tumble than it was pre-patch, but still very do-able. I've not noticed any real change in Emperor (except for lack of AI gold -- they are buying more units, but still seem slow to upgrade what they have).
It's difficult to say because every game is a qualitative experience, not quantitative. On Emperor lately, since the patch, I've struggled a little (usually against Hiawatha, who, as I said before, seems a little out-of-whack in terms of out-teching and out-producing everyone by a wide margin on Emperor).
Yet I fired up Immortal a few days ago, and won without too much trouble (relatively, considering I'm probably just an Emperor level player). In that game, I drew a spot of terrain where I could get 4 cities up, yet had a reasonable defensive position due to surrounding city-states and mountains. I was the Aztecs, had every city on a river for the UB, and grew super tall while only taking one or two DoW's in the entire first 150 turns.
Then I turn around and play Emperor today, and Hiawatha on the opposite end of the Pangea has a mysteriously large tech lead early on and I struggle for much longer than usual and barely win by turn 390 or so, when I usually beat Emperor a hundred turns earlier.
There's just too much else that goes into why a particular game is harder or easier than it usually is on the difficulty level you've selected. I have to agree with Buccaneer and Browd, though, that since the patch, the difficulty levels are still not perfectly consistent in terms of challenge, and moreover, that it'd be almost impossible to have a fair comparision with all variables controlled for other than the patch itself (pre-patch vs post-patch).
What I will say, since the patch, is this:
1) on both Immortal and Emperor, the AI seems to have a slight better ability to use its gold, as others have said
2) again, on both difficulty levels, I seem to run into larger navies than I remember, which is a good thing (pre-patch on Emperor especially I remember not seeing much in terms of AI navies)
3) DoW's are still about the same. I've played a few games on both levels since the patch, and echoing Browd in admitting 3 or 4 games on each level isn't enough to say for sure, I'd have to say that Immortal I usually still take a 2 or 3 civ joint DoW by turns 100-120, whereas on Emperor it's still pretty unusual to have more than 2 civs DoW me at once unless I'm far enough ahead and conquering cities in numbers.
And I agree that Emperor is a good level for the average knowledgable player to be at. When I beat Immortal, it's usually a bit of luck on a good roll, and when I've beaten Deity those two or three times, I was really taking my time to evaluate each turn along with again having a good roll for terrain, city-states, enemy civs, and so forth. I normally play Emperor (~70% of games I played in the last year) and play Immortal sparingly (~20%) and Deity rarely, when I feel up to a good challenge and don't mind a probable loss (<10% of the games this last year).
Yet I fired up Immortal a few days ago, and won without too much trouble (relatively, considering I'm probably just an Emperor level player). In that game, I drew a spot of terrain where I could get 4 cities up, yet had a reasonable defensive position due to surrounding city-states and mountains. I was the Aztecs, had every city on a river for the UB, and grew super tall while only taking one or two DoW's in the entire first 150 turns.
Then I turn around and play Emperor today, and Hiawatha on the opposite end of the Pangea has a mysteriously large tech lead early on and I struggle for much longer than usual and barely win by turn 390 or so, when I usually beat Emperor a hundred turns earlier.
There's just too much else that goes into why a particular game is harder or easier than it usually is on the difficulty level you've selected. I have to agree with Buccaneer and Browd, though, that since the patch, the difficulty levels are still not perfectly consistent in terms of challenge, and moreover, that it'd be almost impossible to have a fair comparision with all variables controlled for other than the patch itself (pre-patch vs post-patch).
What I will say, since the patch, is this:
1) on both Immortal and Emperor, the AI seems to have a slight better ability to use its gold, as others have said
2) again, on both difficulty levels, I seem to run into larger navies than I remember, which is a good thing (pre-patch on Emperor especially I remember not seeing much in terms of AI navies)
3) DoW's are still about the same. I've played a few games on both levels since the patch, and echoing Browd in admitting 3 or 4 games on each level isn't enough to say for sure, I'd have to say that Immortal I usually still take a 2 or 3 civ joint DoW by turns 100-120, whereas on Emperor it's still pretty unusual to have more than 2 civs DoW me at once unless I'm far enough ahead and conquering cities in numbers.
And I agree that Emperor is a good level for the average knowledgable player to be at. When I beat Immortal, it's usually a bit of luck on a good roll, and when I've beaten Deity those two or three times, I was really taking my time to evaluate each turn along with again having a good roll for terrain, city-states, enemy civs, and so forth. I normally play Emperor (~70% of games I played in the last year) and play Immortal sparingly (~20%) and Deity rarely, when I feel up to a good challenge and don't mind a probable loss (<10% of the games this last year).
Having now put in a number of games, I'd say the most noticeable change has been for the AI to actually take cities and completely wipe out other Civs. In the past, I remember there being some scuffling on borders, and both sides would make peace and move on.
As a result, typical warmonger Civs seem to be improved. I mean, how many joked about Monty DoWing everyone in the first 50 turns, then being at the bottom of the point list for the rest of the game? Yet now it seems Civs like Monty are now capable of carving out an empire, and even taking the lead for the remainder of the game.
As a result, typical warmonger Civs seem to be improved. I mean, how many joked about Monty DoWing everyone in the first 50 turns, then being at the bottom of the point list for the rest of the game? Yet now it seems Civs like Monty are now capable of carving out an empire, and even taking the lead for the remainder of the game.
In most of my games, Monty and Genghis usually DoW everyone, bite off more than they can chew, and end up getting wiped out. You have no idea how often I do some mid-game exploration only to find Technochticlan or Samarqland as puppets of another civ.
That has been my usual experience too, but like I said, seems like they can pull it off now. (Perhaps could have been lucky games for them)
Hell even Genghis seems to walk over city-states like they are nothing. I never remember him taking more than maybe one, if any at all. Just played one game where he had gotten 3 right from the start, and another game when he had gotten two before moving on to me.
It is a welcomed change, since these Civs were typically never a threat. Often, like you said, doing more harm to themselves.
Edit: And the latest game, 6 of us started on one larger continent. By the time trebuchets began hitting the field, 3 out of the 6 were completely wiped out. And on the smaller continent, Bismark had gotten England down to only London. I suspect the only reason he didn't manage to take it was the location: Back side of mountain range surrounding by hills, mountains, and coast.
Hell even Genghis seems to walk over city-states like they are nothing. I never remember him taking more than maybe one, if any at all. Just played one game where he had gotten 3 right from the start, and another game when he had gotten two before moving on to me.
It is a welcomed change, since these Civs were typically never a threat. Often, like you said, doing more harm to themselves.
Edit: And the latest game, 6 of us started on one larger continent. By the time trebuchets began hitting the field, 3 out of the 6 were completely wiped out. And on the smaller continent, Bismark had gotten England down to only London. I suspect the only reason he didn't manage to take it was the location: Back side of mountain range surrounding by hills, mountains, and coast.
Similar threads
