(AMA) First Playthrough - Deity Win w/ Game Feedback

[evonannoredars]

Civ7 AI might be better, but the fact that it gets +8 strength on deity and yet, people beat deity on their first play through....not encouraging.

Hardly surprising imo that people are talking about beating deity on their first playthrough on civfanatics

 

[ThERat]

Hardly surprising imo that people are talking about beating deity on their first playthrough on civfanatics

I do not recall people beating civ4 on deity in their first play through, it was a totally different ball game. If you can beat the game on its highest difficulty in your first game, when you hardly know a thing, it just doesn't bode well. What longevity does a game have for you, if you have beaten it off the bat.

 

[Siptah]

I do not recall people beating civ4 on deity in their first play through, it was a totally different ball game. If you can beat the game on its highest difficulty in your first game, when you hardly know a thing, it just doesn't bode well. What longevity does a game have for you, if you have beaten it off the bat.

Making it more difficult à la civ IV wouldn't be difficult to do, either for the devs or in a mod. All you need to do is give the AI much more initial (free techs) and long term bonuses and the player some malus (e.g., higher tech cost). That's effectively what civ IV did. But I don't think this is the best solution for making the game harder. Especially maluses to the player and initial boosts aren't elegant. I would prefer customizable difficulty levels which allow to fine tune what bonuses you want to give to the AI. But of course, there is certainly a lot of room to improve the AI. I often see them having unused settlers running around and armies in far away places that don't move, for example. Or over-investing in Explorers and Missionaries.

Also: I've never played civ for the challenge. For me it's a rather relaxed and feel-good game. I've beaten 5-7 on deity, but I usually play 2 levels below, because I have more fun (and freedom) there. So, having beaten the game on highest difficulty doesn't mean longevity isn't possible.

 

[MIS]

I've often seen two settlers from the same AI aim for the same location. Which I thought was pretty funny.

 

[evonannoredars]

If you can beat the game on its highest difficulty in your first game, when you hardly know a thing, it just doesn't bode well.

That's the thing though, I imagine the people here who 'hardly know a thing' would be a minority. A lot of fundamental mechanics have carried over from previous games, so anyone with sufficient experience with them (which this person clearly has) will likely know what they're doing. Beyond that, the things they have changed were talked about at length by the devs and diseccted endlessly here long before release.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Whatever we think of the AI, the AI has to be seen in combination with the game obviously. It is no secret that the Civ AI can handle stacks much better than 1upt warfare. That's problem #1.
Civ 6 then added lots of convoluted mechanisms that the AI can simply not handle. To me Civ6 is unplayable except for multiplayer. I played always war games in Civ6 and the AI is downright comatose. To make matters worse, they added expansions that made it even more complicated for the AI.

One would of thought that they had learned their lesson, but Civ7 isn't helping the AI it seems. Yes, they got rid of workers, but it seems, city management isn't easier for the AI. It's also no secret that Firaxis has never prioritized AI development, as it doesn't concern sales to casuals. The most notable improvements to Civ4 came from a modder and was partially incorporated into one of the expansions. Civ3 has been blessed with a mod that finally enables to AI to effectively use siege weapons and armies. Took more than 2 decades, but it is there. Not sure, whether modders can salvage this situation yet again, looking at Civ6, I highly doubt that.

If it's been 15 years now that the AI isn't challenging, then that means that it is necessarily by design. If the focus would have been in getting a better AI, the game would have evolved towards that intention, but it didn't.

See how they handled what they call "late game boredom": Firaxis didn't consider the problem was the lack of challenge, but that it was snowballing. Yet snowballing isn't a problem as long as the AI would snowball as fast as you would. Rather then following that direction, they considered era resets instead, so that you don't have a single snowballing but several.

I fear that they actually think something along the line that a good customer is a happy customer, and a happy customer is someone who wins. If so, that's a missed opportunity. Great game design often strikes a balance between being accessible to casual players and offering real challenges for those who seek them. Nintendo has proven really good in handling that difficulty curve. Mario Kart 8 can be won by a toddler on 50cc with auto-steering, but getting all stars in 200cc definitely requires skills. And it sold 75 million copies to this day.

 

[StargazingDog]

To goal of Civ AI is for an enjoyable player experience, not to "win". It's been this way for at least 20 years (if not since the beginning).

 

[Marla_Singer]

To goal of Civ AI is for an enjoyable player experience, not to "win". It's been this way for at least 20 years (if not since the beginning).

Yet enjoyable player experience can also require challenge. My most memorable games in Civ have always been the most challenging, those which gave the feeling that I really earned my victory.

And for the matter, that presentation in your video was done by Soren Jonhson, the game designer of Civ4 which is considered to be the last really challenging civ game.

 

[ThERat]

I recall our crazy always war games in Civ3, where we overcame incredible odds to pull off wins from behind. Way more memorable and enjoyable than the Civ6 braindead AI , where there is no challenge at all.
Soren Johnson knows what he is talking about, as he is the ultimate civilization game designer, being the brain behind Civ3 conquests and Civ4 and now old world. I doubt he meant walkover when talking about an enjoyable experience.


Link to the most memorable AW win on deity pangaea Best game I had the honor being part of:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/handy-21-regular-pangaea-awd-again.130862/

 

[StargazingDog]

For me, the Civ 7 handling of AI is just about right. The changes to the diplomacy system make for alliances that feel like alliances, and wars that make sense. Every Civ feels as though they have a chance due to the ages system. No more beelining a specific mid-late game tech. I can still complete wonders on high difficulty since AI doesn't start with free stuff! These types of changes keep me engaged throughout the entire game, unlike Civ 4/5/6.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I can still complete wonders on high difficulty since AI doesn't start with free stuff! These types of changes keep me engaged throughout the entire game, unlike Civ 4/5/6.

Sorry to ask but why do you need that "on high difficulty"? How wouldn't that be okay if your level of fun would actually be at a more moderate difficulty and you would stick to it? Personally when I played Civ4, I rarely ventured beyond Monarch or Emperor and I was fine with that. It wasn't a problem to me that Immortal and Deity existed for more hardcore gamers who wanted to play more optimally.

 

[remconius]

I aree that there is no real challenge. After you set up your cities in the early age, you basically cruise to any victory you like. There is no real challenge.
It's more a decision of which victory you will go for than a true challenge.

I also havent seen any AI try to get a victory.

 

[StargazingDog]

Sorry to ask but why do you need that "on high difficulty"?

It was difficult to complete wonders on even a moderately high difficulty in Civ 6. I was essentially forced to stick with default difficulty. I remember one game on King difficulty, playing as Egypt, and getting beat to Pyramids. It was absurd. Civ 6 is the easiest Civ I have ever played, but I can't increase difficulty without losing access to a major mechanic (world wonders).

Civ 4 & 5 didn't have this issue. I play Civ 4 at two levels above default (if I recall correctly), and Civ 5 at one level up (King). These are perfect IMHO. My experience probably matches yours.

Currently playing Civ 7 on sovereign and it feels right.

 

[ThichN]

Or in this case the much improved AI can't compete with the free Settlers etc the AI gets on Civ 6.

That's interesting. Did they start with more than 1?

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Did they start with more than 1?

3 on Deity plus a ton of other stuff!

 

[ThichN]

3 on Deity plus a ton of other stuff!

Thanks for the info! That explains a lot. Somehow I'm still able to beat Deity on Civ6, though. I just always find their military units come at me one at a time, or not at all. They're very strange about how they move units on the map.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Hardly surprising imo that people are talking about beating deity on their first playthrough on civfanatics

Whilst I kind of agree with you, I do think it's a bit of a failure of recent Civ games. For me, the whole point of having different difficulty levels is that you can cater to all tastes, from the world builders who don't want a challenge, to the min max wizards who want it to be properly difficult. I think the last few iterations of Civ do a good job of catering to the world builders, and the large group of players in the middle who want a mild challenge on the way to inevitable victory, but they don't really work for the extreme strategists, which I think is a shame.

 

[V. Soma]

Nice first game!
Perhaps next a chance for this AI mod?