BtS WAY to easy???

[futurehermit]

The health bonus is nice, but it was the 50% worker production bonus that made expansive really good. I just don't understand why they nerfed the worker bonus in BtS. Maybe a multiplayer thing. In single player expansive dropped back to being a kind of weak trait.

I don't like though that the worker bonus doesn't apply to converted food hammers. Usually early on I am using food specials to build workers.

 

[uberfish]

Well there's always (sigh) early worker chop rushing much as I despise it.

 

[futurehermit]

Yeah, I've had some success with that approach.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I don't like though that the worker bonus doesn't apply to converted food hammers. Usually early on I am using food specials to build workers.

Shouldn't that be good for ensuring it's not too overpowered?

 

[futurehermit]

Umm...considering expansive is currently considered a bottom tier trait how would giving it that one small bonus all of a sudden make it overpowered?

 

[DaviddesJ]

Umm...considering expansive is currently considered a bottom tier trait how would giving it that one small bonus all of a sudden make it overpowered?

Obviously the designers thought it was overpowered or they wouldn't have nerfed it in BTS.

 

[MrCynical]

Obviously the designers thought it was overpowered or they wouldn't have nerfed it in BTS.

Maybe they were expecting the tendency for greater unhealthiness in the industrial age with BtS to make that element more important? I have to admit that I can't see why they nerfed expansive. It's always been a weak trait to start with, especially given the strange way that the worker speed boost works. Given that in virtually all starts it is food, not production that makes up the majority of the worker, this makes that element very weak. I'm none too sure that it was intentional for it to work that way; they may just not have bothered to fix it.

 

[futurehermit]

Obviously the designers thought it was overpowered or they wouldn't have nerfed it in BTS.

I suppose that's true although it clearly seems to be a multiplayer issue from what I've read about it.

I would be cool with expansive being boosted back up to 3 health though.

 

[chrissicom]

Let me jump in on this discussion

I played Civ IV since the day it was released and got Warlords quite a while ago already. I was usually playing Noble to get a challenging game for me. Due to the way I play (build almost no military until around 500 AD) because I just want the fun of expanding cities it was difficult to stay on top the score table with Noble difficulty. In higher difficulties like Monarch I couldn't complete any wonders because I was obviously too bad. Now a few days back I got BtS and I play Prince. It is definitely a LOT easier than before, I can complete almost every wonder before the others (playing with 14 civs on a 200x180 smartmap) and also my ultra little military seems to have much more impact now, i.e. it isn't that tiny anymore. The only difficulties I have on the higher levels is that people get frustrated and unhealthy real quick and maintenance costs are insanely high, but the AI defenitly got a whole lot dumber... well actually it's as smart as before but it got less bonusses

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I suppose that's true although it clearly seems to be a multiplayer issue from what I've read about it.

I would be cool with expansive being boosted back up to 3 health though.

Just change it yourself

 

[UncleJJ]

I haven't had time to read through all this thread but I wanted to give my impressions of BtS. It probably is easier to adopt a builder type approach since the tech rate is slower (and much more reasonable and also more likely to correspond to historical timelines). It is fairly easy to build some wonders even at higher levels like Emperor partly due perhaps to the fact there are more available.

I think warfare is more difficult due to larger armies and a more defensive posture of the AIs. The AI defends itself by making you get severe WW due to all the attacks you have to make to take a city. Plus it is willing to counterattack vigorously which in its own culture costs you even more WW wether it wins or loses. It trades hammers against your WW until you leave it alone. Even if you do take a city or two the cost of distorting your whole economy can make warfare questionable over a more peaceful and co-operative approach relying on trading techs and resources.

 

[hoopsnerd]

Your forgetting 7-9 turns to research nationalism + 1 for anarchy. So 20 turns for 20 rifles and 6 trebs which is still a pretty tight estimate. Im giving 15 turns before AI gets guilds. Many of those HA's will become knights, AI will go whip crazy when its in war so while in warlords a stack of 20 rifles was unstopabble, in BTS it is not. I would like you to play 50 more turns of this game and post the save of your position at that point.

If I have time ill play some turns also.

Trebs? honestly? Why not just research Steel while you draft rifles like crazy? Suicided trebs are nothing compared to cannons. You fear the AI getting guilds when you have rifles? Seriosly? What difficulty level are we talking here?

Edit: Oops, forgot to include the part that was on topic...

If you turn Aggressive AI on and play as a builder, then the AI techs super slow and is at a disadvantage. Conversely, if you play Normal AI and play as a warmonger with an early rush, then the AI is again at a big disadvantage. It's my opinion that BtS is actually harder if you choose the apporpriate AI for your playstyle. The AI techs much faster than warlords (certain AI, at least) on "normal AI" and is just smarter overall. I rarely, if ever, perform a "rush" on the AI (I think it's cheap -- but i guess it isnt now if you turn on Agg AI) before all the land is settled, and I typicly play Marathon/Emperer/Huge/Hemis/15AI. With Warlords AI, every game you could just play a "builder" style and eventually dominate the AI with your well-developed infrastructure. Now the AI actually focuses on commerce once in awhile and disregards it's former "city-garrison spam."

The AI DOES tech way slower if you turn off tech brokering/trading, or if it's the ultra-aggressive expansion personality.

Edit: I should have pointed out that I've been using Solver's patch since acquiring civ4.

 

[lilnev]

My own thoughts (Immortal, mostly normal AI so far, and I haven't played with Solver's patch yet): The AI does tech more slowly, often significantly so. It also expands to fill the land more slowly. If I can block off enough land for 8+ cities, I can actually get ahead fairly easily, and either fight an advantageous later war or simply play for a totally peaceful spacerace. However, taking land by warfare has become very much harder. The AI now knows how to surge its production via whipping, and use its defenders/counterattackers more effectively. Plus the nerfs to siege units.

Overall, BtS seems to be easier than Warlords if I get a starting location with enough room to expand. But the variance is also higher -- a boxed-in start, with room for just 3 cities, can be very difficult (whereas in Warlords, it generally wasn't too hard to fight my way out, with catapults if no metal was available). I'm not sure I like the overall shift. I like variance in gameplay (which strategy will work best varies from game to game), but not necessarily in difficulty. I'm afraid there will be too many "yawn, another trivial victory" and "damn, that was hopeless" games, neither of which I enjoy.

For now, I'm trying modestly overcrowded maps (12 total civs on large, instead of the default 9) and experimenting with Agressive AI, trying to find a balance that I like.

peace,
lilnev

 

[hoopsnerd]

The AI does tech more slowly, often significantly so. It also expands to fill the land more slowly. If I can block off enough land for 8+ cities, I can actually get ahead fairly easily, and either fight an advantageous later war or simply play for a totally peaceful spacerace.

I think the slower expansion is due to the fact that the AIs bonuses have been cut down, mostly the ones for city and unit maintenance if I am not mistaken. I am actually having a more difficult time covering the maintenance costs of fast expansion myself with BtS... it seems to be making the imperialistic trait a lot weaker since you can't afford to support fast expansion and still tech at a reasonable rate anymore.

I always thought it sucked anyways that the AI could colonize 2x more land than I could at the beginning of the game, those bonuses were just lame. I'd rather the AI got less bonuses and played less like a ******, we'll see about the latter . In any case, BtS AI is improved even with the bugs -- but those will get fixed soon anyways.

 

[uberfish]

Overall, BtS seems to be easier than Warlords if I get a starting location with enough room to expand. But the variance is also higher -- a boxed-in start, with room for just 3 cities, can be very difficult (whereas in Warlords, it generally wasn't too hard to fight my way out, with catapults if no metal was available).

Yeah, I agree with this analysis.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

What difficulty level are we talking here?

Deity (normal speed).

 

[Breunor]

I'm new to the thread, but I'm finding BtS harder. Originally, I was upset with my play. I used to win about 50% on Monarch, I'm thinking of going to Prince. Now I'm winning about 20% or less, I think.

Don't know why ......

Breunor

 

[nullspace]

I've been playing immortal with aggressive AI, and I agree with lilnev's observation about "more variance". The difficulty a given game can also depend on how AI wars go. If they fight stalemates amongst themselves, the game can be very easy. If they fight profitable wars, or if they fight you, then the game can be very hard.

 

[lilnev]

I'm new to the thread, but I'm finding BtS harder. Originally, I was upset with my play. I used to win about 50% on Monarch ......

I think the "BtS is easier" changes are much more profound at Emperor+. In particular:

1) The happiness cap was raised from 3 to 4 (this is huge; it's like every leader gets half the benefit of Charismatic for free). I'm not sure if lower levels got a raised cap as well, but even if so it's proportionally less valuable.
2) Many of the AI maintenance costs have been flattened, such that they're the same at all levels instead of progressive. This obviously benefits the Deity players most.
3) AI now gets one fewer starting worker. This only applies if they had one previously, of course. I think this is a large part of why the initial land-grab is not as fast.

peace,
lilnev

 

[hoopsnerd]

I think the "BtS is easier" changes are much more profound at Emperor+. In particular:

1) The happiness cap was raised from 3 to 4 (this is huge; it's like every leader gets half the benefit of Charismatic for free). I'm not sure if lower levels got a raised cap as well, but even if so it's proportionally less valuable.
2) Many of the AI maintenance costs have been flattened, such that they're the same at all levels instead of progressive. This obviously benefits the Deity players most.
3) AI now gets one fewer starting worker. This only applies if they had one previously, of course. I think this is a large part of why the initial land-grab is not as fast.

peace,
lilnev

Ahh yeah, excellent point -- I hadn't considered all of those factors. Those of us used to playing on Emperor or above might find BtS far easier while those playing Monarch and below may find it more difficult. I also agree totally with the above post concerning the success of AI wars having a massive impact on the relative difficulty of each game.