Winning on Deity

or exploit what the AI does really well with the Sidar.

See surviaval challenge thread for details. But what is meant by it is easy to grasp for players with experience in playing sidar on emperor + (especially with raging barbs.).

Perhaps the only civ getting stronger the higher you put the difficulty above noble and the more civs warring with you. The harder they hit you the stronger you become. (Enough for Deity OCC always war against 3+ allied civs at peace with and raging barbs.)
 
while the sidar are much fun to play in the survival challenge i managed a lot faster wins with tasunke. you have to be fast though as there is not really much room to research anything, so warriors without CR it is.

i only played two deity games on 0.33, still manageable. the beginning is a lot tougher due to the broader tech spectrum, i had some aweful turns on 20% research (and a scientist in each city) after warrior-rushing my neighbour.
at first i was very surprised to see them having 5 warriors and 3 scouts as a defense on a hill city. i had 8 combat1/shock warriors (eating my money away). but luckyly the "AI" decided that an open field battle would be better and gave me some 89% fights and a couple of XP :)
varn was a tough nut to crack though, hill defense warriors in his capital, i lost 5 shock2 warriors on the assault, nearly broke my neck when the orks came calling right after...
 
Warrior-Rush always works right now (perhaps that might change in a future version) and best with Tasunke (way in front) or Kandros Fir / Amelanchier (also very strong options with some advantages even to tasunke but way weaker overall) naturally with some others with comparable skills to do so as well. But thats no wonder. (Hence me thinking now Warriors are the most powerful unit in the game by sheer balance consideration / the time you get them.)

Sidar have the benefit that you can win much more reliable in survival settings if not all that fast. Because after you have survived the first onslaught you can't really lose anymore other than by blatant bad play. So i think in the long run Sidar whould win at a higher ratio and much more ease overall but less impressively timewise / scorewise if they do.
 
Yes but Wane doesn't loses its usefulness until much later (when you have so many shades you just can't sensibly use more for the time to build those units.) while the sidar warriors are a weaker than tasunkes ones (but still have a combat advantage thanks to homeland to non-combat leaders), thats all the point was about.

Plus high-level warriors are not absolutely mandatory for sucessful warrior-rushing. Just many more than defenders (Even though its much easier to do with some combats done beforehand and reduces the need for extreme numerical advantage.). Thats why it works well against both few units around and many around and regardless of difficulty unlike wane which depends on all of those.

So there are profound differences.
 
Plus high-level warriors are not absolutely mandatory for sucessful warrior-rushing. Just many more than defenders (Even though its much easier to do with some combats done beforehand and reduces the need for extreme numerical advantage.). Thats why it works well against both few units around and many around and regardless of difficulty unlike wane which depends on all of those.

So there are profound differences.

This topic is on winning on diety though. There's no way you'll ever get to the point where you've got more warriors than the AI has defenders, so high level units are a must.
 
This topic is on winning on diety though. There's no way you'll ever get to the point where you've got more warriors than the AI has defenders, so high level units are a must.

it is common enough that the AI has a lot more troops overall but is too stupid to get them together for a coordinated defense. you get your promotions while fighting, you'll need a steady supply of warrios though as there will be quite some losses.
most of the time there will be plenty of barbarians to level your warriors with until you have enough of them to take out one of your neighbours.
 
@Demus: What slowcar said. ;) Belive us. We have done so. (i do so on immortal rather often with 6 or seven unpromoted warriors. Works well. After the first city is taken they are no longer unpromoted. City defense at deity level is not all so much different. At normal speed at least. Quick is another matter.)
No need not to grab a promotion if the opportunity presents itself though. Which is often enough. (Even without wildlands or raging barbs its rather common to get 1 or 2 Combat 1, Shock 1 Warriors (much more with an agressive Leader) from 0 xp ones (Apprenticeship comes rather early as well usually at that level so that takes care of the combat one prerequisite or allows for instant-shockers for agressive leaders. Which should be enough to steamroll a small or even 1-landmass medium-size map if lucky.). Its just one offensive combat most of the time.
In the right terrain one Lion or Goblin might be enough.) A Shock warrior is easiely worth 2 unpromoted ones for city conquest + survives better which means its not bad to lose the odd one at a 66% or 50% fight.
Also after a "surprise" DoW on AI border (1-2 Turns to go before you can attack) 2-3 city defenders are about the rule (the rest run around elsewere / are eaten by spiders and bears :evil:) its possible to take those down with 6-7 Warriors even if it might take more than one Turn and the odds are not all that nice for the first fights. If you are lucky and get his capital + starting worker this way he won't really recover until you can finish him off (+ some XP will be coming your way. :D).
And sometimes you can even lure them out by putting a lone warrior from your stack in flatlands and kill the baited unit should it survive + get 2 Promotions for the following raid on said city (sometimes you get 2 Units killed that way with the odd lucky bait killing one defender and luring out another if 4 Units are defending for example. I don't belive the AI whould go below 2 defenders that way if a stack is next door but i might be mistaken... Which whould turn it into a total farce.).

And its painfully easy to build a stack of warriors and go on campaign. (works well for higher level scouting also to group your explorers in sets of 3.
Another tactics that works well at deity-level and is not all that important below immortal.)

+ its always possible to get copper if you are lucky or enchanted blade early if your civ starts with enchantment mana which makes the whole thing alot easier even if your oponent has (if badly hurt) survived your first onslaught.

And should he be dumb enough to have a Stack on campaign of their own its another fine source of XP. (works even on defense on a forested hill / across a river instead of offensively picking them off in the open currently. Less XP more reliable)

All in all the warrior rush requires way less many fights to get rolling in comparison to Wane. Factor 1:7 in fights is about what it boils down to. (only that the additional power-increase for high-level warriors decreases the more fights you get in direct opposite to shades where more fights mean exponentially more power up to the point were its impossible to defend against with mere Warriors. And in Survival there are much units around so the stacks needed to kill a dedicated defender for sure are really huge you just need to pick the right promotions. Borders three-digit numbers.)




Which is perhaps a good base for an idea how Deity (might be immortal as well, if to a lesser extent) could be made more harder without much / any AI-improvements:

Just like in Vanilla hand out one or two archers to AI as part of their starting package at Deity level. That would nerf that part fair and square without much hassle to code the AI (AI archers rather seldomly go on campaign.).
And without giving it an overly overpowering way to rush themselves.
The result might be more elegant than extensive AI tinkering just for that small aspect. (With 2 or 3 other defenders initially most of the time the Archer will survive even a big stack of warriors washing against the walls by hiding if piled on and wounded. After one Round of such an onslaught those Archers become impenetratable barriers with Garrison 3 attained after 4 or 5 fights at worst.
You won't crack what nets to a power 15 City defender with mere warriors. Let alone Str 17-20 on hills which the Ai actually likes to settle on + getting even stronger after each odd fight or the other. Thats just the stopper for any whould be fastrusher. No matter what number of Warriors he can sensibly bring on. And independent of a promotion or 3.)

That whould stop any rushkill at those difficulties dead in its tracks and also help AI to survive the early stages / threats from dirge / guardian of pristinus pass and Barbatmos. And even make Tier 2-Rush a much harder affair if not undoable. So deity becomes at least a bit more like it should be.

What do the other players of immortal/deity-level games say on this? Does it sound like a sensible proposal to carry over to the main forums / balancing 0.33? What are your observations in that regard / AI-Archer use? (Remember deity is supposed to be really hard so for the sake of the designers / the game / community try not to keep the AI gimped just so you can say you can win deity. Should the thought come to mind. ;))
 
heh, the only real diety experience i've had was from the survival challenge, which starts with always war on. In other words: 5-10 units in your capitol's cross from turn 5, with 20 more every 10 turns or so (3 AI civs, small-tiny pangea). It's tough for me to imagine having a higher quantity of units at one point ;)
 
Now there are many paralells from regular immortal play (i seldomly play deity because most games become such a drag and are not rally fun + even small mistakes are punished very hard. Its just fit for testing things i consider completely broken in my games and i test if those stand up to what i think about them. Like i did when Death 2 for Adepts was possible at necromancy. And it did prove to be utterly insane.) so you can take these examples too for a rough outlook i think. The main advantages AI is getting at deity is in other fields than at the very start in military terms (+ not having to focus on military from the very start makes it tech way more effectively.).

Survival is an extreme and really takes things out of proportion (non-teamed AI tech faster for example in normal games due to insane tech brockering among other things. Add to that world-speels going off at more unfortunate times and you will see that really finishing a normal game might be even harder). That Warrior rushing works so well even there is a testament to how powerful it really is not one that it doesn't work elsewere on deity.




On toppic in another regard: Even with just Skelletons, with Sheaim its easy to realize just how powerful skelletons / throw-away troops / summons are (and the AI is just as prone to attacking skelletons as they are normal units). Plus they heal + relocate any turn if you like and are fast with Movement 2.
Just get a big heap of Death 1 adepts (a few of those should have combat as high as possible and extension 1) and kill 2 sorounding AIs works vs. Warriors, Hunters and Axemen. Even at deity. The time you need to get adepts won't enable the nearby AI to get farther and with 6 or 7 cities at start you do have some base to catch up. And survive until Sorcery at which time you get the insane spectres which kill most things with enough death mana.
I find that more apealing than producing the zombies with them until i have a sizable number of adepts already. (also because chaos1? and fire 1 are not all that useless at the very start.)
At the time you reach eaters (often followed by pass trough the aether thanks to grimoire and ToD. No need to tech those extremely expensive techs yourselves) which is not that much later than sorcery thanks to a sage saved for the occasion of rushing arcane lore the game will be finished in a matter of turns for each AI in your way.
Nothing AI can field stands in the way of Nexus + Eaters and their own former people are the tools to mark their demise (and those AI cities at deity are rather big in midgame already.).
Its just not that easy anymore since the point were your power spirals out of control is moved from necromancy to sorcery. Still a very strong civ. Makes one fear what will be when the AI gets a full grip on magic and learns how to effectively use summons.
 
i think an additional archer would help the AI a bit. there won't be any cityguard though as there is a tech prerequisite in FFH, will be a challenge but unless on a hill maybe a manageable one.
 
Ahh, forgot on that one. Thanks for mentioning. :)
That makes it a bit less of a complete stopper (on a hill they will still take Geruilia 1 which is comparable and faster.).
Combat 3 is still scary enough to render a non sucessfull initial attack a show-stopper.
 
When you think of ways to make the AI better, just think what is it that you do and the AI doesn't. For example, I usually have one defender in all but the most exposed cities on the border, and I rely on roads to move a big defensive stack around. Sometimes when the AI rushes me with a huge stack, I'll just take the defenders out of the first cities on his way. This way I get more defenders in my better cities, plus the enemy doesn't get experience and has to leave some troops to garrison or I'll just retake it with a horseman (who still moves 6 tiles on my turf). The AI on the other hand splits his defenders pretty evenly between the front cities and his capital deep in his territory. That allows you to take cities one by one while upgrading your troops and reinforcing while you heal, without the defence getting significantly better as your assault marches on. Making the AI concentrate his defenders in the first defensible city (not to mention avoiding attacking that lone bait warrior on) would make him much harder to rush, and make deity much less reliant on it.
 
I don't know about the extra archer, the head start the AI gets on deity is already ridiculous enough to lead to too many frustrating games for non-rushing players where you don't rush and get double teamed by 2 AI. Perhaps if it paid for it by losing something else?
 
Maybe losing some smiley faces, so he still gets two cities but they aren't both size 20 after a few turns.
 
it's diety, it's supposed to be the biggest challenge out there ;). If you don't want the rediculous bonusses for the AI, play a lower level
 
@ Yashkaf: "Problem" with that is that it takes time to teach the AI just that (and not few if it goes down to so much detail as you described.).

So the question is why not just hand out an Archer to achieve just the same effect (or possibly an even better effect then what can be achieved by any sensible ammount of coding) in game since Archers are supposed to do just that from existing unit-AI?
(Because a bit of player sentiment and feeling of unfair treatment vs. AI? Is deity really supposed to be fair in any way imaginable?)

Much faster in terms of time and resources to do for the team but same effect maybe (with slowcars correction on city garrison showing that its about the same in effect of what you described making in very hard but not completely impossible in all cases to rush.)?
And very importantly less code to consider for the AI means faster turns and less processor use?
More time for the team to put elsewere and faster gameplay benefit all players imo.
So is it really worth less then some sentiment on justice / fairness of AI towards players?


@ uberfish: Well, there is a difference bettween a riddiculous challenge and a completely undoable challenge by pure skill / planning (+ those Charriots whouldn't stay to defend so in very strange circumstances you could still sucessfully rush and indirectly kill those charriots by killing the owner if cought flat footed. And then you whould likely just lose the game to the next AI)
So that whould be more like a random wild card thats not good fun in a strategy game for most players. Otherwise you could just roll dice. Winning against nigh!-impossible odds in a controlled situation can be fun on the other hand. (Otherwise Vanilla players whouldn't play and at times even win deity.)

Archers on the other hand are possible to beat if they don't have acess to city garison line from the start ("just" very very hard) and completly calculatable because they are not prone to / fit for attacking + they don't offer a real advantage beyond the very start / early defense. Unlike War Charriots whould do. Plus they actually help better against the early threats like Barbatmos or the Guardians emerging from pirstinus pass without completely taking those out of the game (which whould happen if War-Chariots are handed out.).
Tier 2 Units can with good planning and care + perhaps a bit of luck, crack archers if rather hard, but still doable before the AI has went further beyond that Tier (Horsemen for example have a bonus vs. Archery.).

But really deity is supposed to be ridicculous. Thats what makes it deity. It should be a real accomplishment to acieve a victory of that level not just very hard (that sounds fine for emperor and to a more extreme degree immortal. emperor imo should be the upper end of somewhat "normal" play and feel. That point is very much arguable i confess. But still my take on things.). But completely undoable other than by pure luck, no (luck will still be something of a factor as it is in vanilla deity no matter if the AI is improved or things like those proposed here are used. Thats what nigh-impossible odds mean.).
You might very well disagree on that last part, but is that best for the development of the game?

Is it really so painful to have to turn the difficulty down a notch if virtually every other player if forced to do the same as well?
 
Well the main problem I see with the archer is it makes the early war option excessively luck based depending on whether it's in a city that must be taken for strategic reasons, whether it's on a hill, how many barbarian units it gets to eat etc. Maybe if the deity AI were coded to build palisades if it wasn't rushing itself (rush strategies in general got more powerful when city cultural defences in FFH were reduced to 10% per culture level, and the AIs certainly have plenty of production to spare)
 
That certainly is a possible / reasonable point (if one sees this as a problem which i don't all to much but thats really not a bit more than my opinion / taste in that regard) but with one Archer per city (which is what it whould boil down to at max.) i doubt that it is anything beyond you "simply" needing more troops for an initial rush on one AI (+ you surely can't steamroll multiple civs easiely one after the other which i think is a big plus overall.) and you have to field enough troops to be sure to do so sucessfully. (unless you really wish to gamble.)
But in that regard i might err. (You whould probably have been right without much doubt and testing in that point if CG-promotions whould have been available from the start.)


I don't see a forced adjustment of tactics (aka beeing forced to rush with about twice as many warriors as usual) as a problem.
With a nearby Ai always easier to rush than far away ones and only near ones are usually in problematic locations tactically (aka cornering you in a small confine.).
I don't belive that the first nearby AI you rush get any barbarians (needing to enter borders) to eat if you really opt for early rush.
The hill might be a real factor. That whould need testing if on inital rush the archer has any promotions really. (it only gets really scary after Geruillia I)

Another thing is that the lairs and monsters part of "Marnok modmod" (or something simmilar) might be part of the main-mod sometime during the next patches (as an option or straight into the main game). And that might make it straight down necessary to give higher-level AI a solid extra city defender. Lest half the civs go down during the early turns of the game even at deity.
Palisades alone (if the AI really skipps those right now) don't really cut it i belive (without a much better AI for starting defense. What speaks against this in comparison i have mentioned here a few posts before.).
 
Top Bottom